JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.112 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has discharged the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 of the revision petition who were the accused persons before the court below by exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the accused persons of the case were making plan to kill the informant with the help of some unknown persons by giving them money. Out of the material witnesses examined by police during the investigation of the case, the witnesses Shyam Kishore Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh, Ram Nawal Singh and Rajendra Singh have stated that they heard from someone that the accused persons were planning to kill the informant by giving money to some unknown persons. All these witnesses have not disclosed the name of the person from whom they heard about the planning to kill the informant and they have also not disclosed the name of the person to whom the money was paid to kill the informant. Beside this, the statement of one Bikash Kant Choudhary was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he has stated that Dilip and Sunil called Shankar Dubey and told him that they are going to talk with Ravi and Mahesh Gupta and Sunil will do the work of Birendra Kumar who is the son of T.P. Singh and gave money to Sunil. 4. Learned trial court after observing that no offence is made out against the accused persons discharged them in exercise of its power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner submits that at the stage of framing of charge the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true and on the basis of prima facie finding of strong suspicion charge has to be framed and in this respect the learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgment of Soma Chakravarty vs. State through C.B.I. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph no.10 and 19 as under:- “10. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 19. Some of the questions, however, which have been raised by the appellant are of some importance and it may be necessary to deal therewith. The learned trial Judge, it appears, did not properly apply its mind in regard to the different categories of the accused while framing charges. It ought to have been done. Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion cannot alone, without anything more, it is trite, form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge.”(Emphasis Supplied) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner next submitted that once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and in this respect relied upon the judgment of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph no. 30 as under :- “30. We have already noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression ”there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence”. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. A Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa referred to the meaning of the words “presume” while relying upon Black’s Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean “to believe or accept upon probable evidence”; “to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming”. In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment. Merely because there was a civil transaction between the parties would not be itself alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal offence.” (Emphasis Supplied) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner then submitted that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction and in this respect relied upon the judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2041 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph no. 8 as under:- “The law on the subject is now well settled, as pointed out in Niranjan Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bijjaya (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (AIR1990 SC 1962) that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.”(Emphasis Supplied) It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the learned 1st Assistant Session Judge, Jamshedpur has failed to take into consideration that there is sufficient material in the record to frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons of the case who are the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of this criminal revision. It is next submitted that this Court twice did not interfere with the petition filed by the opposite parties for quashing the order taking cognizance and as such the 1st Assistant Session Judge, Jamshedpur ought not have allowed the petition for discharge of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of this revision petition. Hence, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner that the impugned judgment dated 18.12.1998 be set aside and trial court be directed to consider the framing of charge against the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of this revision petition. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. supported the contention of the petitioner and adopted the arguments submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner. 7. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 in-spite of repeated calls. 8. Before going into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Further, it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another (supra) as in paragraph nos.12, 13 and 18 as under:- “12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. 18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C. 18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.(Emphasis Supplied) It is also a settled principle of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial as has been held in the case of Dilwar alu Kurane Vs. State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 has laid down the guidelines for exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. It is relevant at this Stage to refer to Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- 115. It is relevant at this Stage to refer to Sections 115 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:- 115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life—if offence not committed.—Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in consequence—and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine. 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.---(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. Now coming to the facts of the case so far as the statement of the witnesses Shyam Kishore Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh, Ram Nawal Singh and Rajendra Singh are concerned, undisputedly, they are hearsay witnesses and they have not even mentioned the name of the person from whom they heard about the said plan of killing the informant nor they have disclosed the name of the person to whom money was paid to kill the informant. So far as the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Bikash Kant Choudhary is concerned the relevant part of his statement which is said to be sufficient for implicating the respondent nos. So far as the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Bikash Kant Choudhary is concerned the relevant part of his statement which is said to be sufficient for implicating the respondent nos. 2 to 4 of this revision petition in this case is that he heard that the accused persons of the case were talking that Sunil will do the work of Birendra Kumar who is the son of T.P. Singh and hence ‘Mal’ should be given to Sunil. There is no material in the record to suggest what work means, in the context it is used in the said conversation between the accused persons. The word ‘work’ has a very wide meaning and there is no material in the record to suggest the word ‘work’ refer to in the statement of Bikash Kant Choudhary has any relation to any offence. Even assuming for the sake of argument the word ‘work’ refers to any offence still the allegations in the absence of any material as to whether any ‘Mal’ was in fact given or not, would at best amount to contemplation of abetment and not abetment itself. Considering the aforesaid facts and the settled principle of law regarding the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as discussed above and the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order by which the learned trial court has discharged the opposite party nos.2 to 4 of this revision petition by exercising the power under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this revision petition being without any merit is dismissed. 9. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.