JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondent-State. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding maintainability. 3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the discharge passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot in C.C.NO.22/2017. Since the said petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same is maintainable. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 5. Though this case is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the same is taken up for final disposal. 6. The gist of the case as per the case of the complainant is that, accused/petitioner, who was working as a Manager of IndusInd Bank, Bagalkot branch, in the year 2012, he made the borrowers to believe towards advancement of the loan with lower rate of interest and thereby sanctioned loan of an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- in favour of Sangappa P. Kavalli, Rs.18,00,000./- in favour of Mallappa Dundappa Barki, Rs.16,50,000/- in favour of the Sanjiv Koraddi and Rs.13,00,000/- in favour of Shabulingappa P. Sunkad and made use of Rs.25,50,000/- out of the said advancement of loans for his own use without the knowledge of the borrowers and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating and thereby committed the alleged offences. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the borrowers are the educated persons. They executed agreement papers and the term loan has been sanctioned. It is his further argument that the said amount has been sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing the vehicle and the said amount has been directly paid to the dealers in favour of the borrowers. It is his further contention that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet material are contradictory to each other and even the documents which are intended to be produced by filing an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. have not been considered by the Court below. He further submitted that the allegations which have been made in the charge sheet are false and no such offence has been committed by the petitioner/accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.22/2017. 8. He further submitted that the allegations which have been made in the charge sheet are false and no such offence has been committed by the petitioner/accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.22/2017. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned HCGP that the Court below, after considering the material facts and circumstances has come to a right conclusion. There is material to frame the charge and as such, the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is rejected. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and the Trial Court's order deserves to be confirmed. 9. I have and carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10. Before going to consider the factual circumstances and submission made by the learned counsel, at the time of considering an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case keeping in view the essential ingredients of the offence for which the accused has been charged. The real test for determining whether the charge should be framed or not is, only where the materials are such that even if unrebutted makes out no case whatsoever as against the accused/petitioner, then under such circumstances, the accused/petitioner is entitled to be discharged from the charges. When strong suspicious circumstances are found on the material which has been placed before the Magistrate and if the Magistrate is satisfied, then that is sufficient for him to frame the charge. 11. Keeping in view the above said proposition of law, on a close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it shows that the accused/petitioner was working as a Manager of the Bank and he got sanctioned the loan amount in the name of various borrowers and thereafter the said loan amounts have not been credited to the bank. Though during the course of argument it is contended that the accused/petitioner has filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to produce the documents and to establish the fact that he is in no way concerned about the misappropriation of the funds, that itself goes to show that the matter requires to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. When a huge amount has been misappropriated by sanctioning with the name of various borrowers and the bank has made serious allegations against the petitioner/accused, then under such circumstances, the accused/petitioner is not entitled to be discharged. 12. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of the trial Court. Even at the time of hearing the discharge application, the evidence cannot be weighed with golden scale and prima facie material has to be seen in this behalf. Looking form any angle, there is no other material to come to the conclusion that the accused is not responsible for the alleged crime. Hence there are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court and the same deserved to be confirmed by dismissing the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.