JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel for and on behalf of the petitioner (Amitabh Rai Sarma) and Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for and on behalf of the petitioner (Arup Rai). 2. Both petitioners are accused in Special Case No.08/2010 under Section 120(B) read with Section 420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI (Additional Court No.1), Assam. 3. By way of present petitions filed under Sections 482 read with Section 401/397 CrPC, both the petitioners have challenged the order of framing charge dated 29.04.2014 by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam (Additional Court No.1) in the said case. As the challenge is made to the common order, both the petitions are taken up together for disposal. 4. On receipt of a written complain from NIA dated 12.03.2010/23.03.2010 against No. (1) Mohit Hojai, (2) Subrata Hojai, (3) Arup Rai, (4) unknown employee of Soil Conservation, (5) unknown employee of NCHAC and (6) unknown members of DSBG, regarding the allegation of misappropriation of Govt. fund by public servant of Govt. of Assam along with other private persons in NC Hills by way of misuse of official position, criminal misconduct, forgery etc., the said complaint was treated as an FIR and on the request of Govt. of Assam, CBI registered the same as a regular case No. RC/5(A)/2010/SHG dated 13.05.2010, under Sections 120 (B)/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) of P.C. Act against the accused persons including the present two petitioners. 5. The allegation in the FIR is that a sum of Rs.2 Crore had been received by the Soil Conservation department and Arup Rai then Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Maibong Division under N.C. Hills Authnomous Council had been in the said post continuously for long 17 years. Out of Rs. 2 crore allotted for implementation of works under different schemes works for not even Rs.50 Lacs was reported executed under different schemes and the rest of the money went to the DHFD(J), Mohit Hojai and the EM Subroto Hojai, thus causing wrongful loss to the Government funds of soil Conservation Department of N.C. Hills. 6. After a thorough investigation, CBI submitted 6 (six) charge-sheets before the court of learned Additional Special Judge, CBI. 6. After a thorough investigation, CBI submitted 6 (six) charge-sheets before the court of learned Additional Special Judge, CBI. Although, initially 6 cases were registered on the basis of separate charge-sheet (total 6 in number) but subsequently as per direction of the court all the case were amalgamated and merged into Special Case No.08/2010. 7. On appearance of all the accused persons, after furnishing them necessary copies of statement and documents pertaining to the case and after hearing the learned counsel for prosecution and defence counsel on the point of charge, the learned trail court was pleased to frame charge against all the accused persons, namely, (1) Arup Rai, (2) Subrata Hojai, (3) Lakhi Chutia, (4) Amitabh Rai Sarma, (5) Jeevan Ram Hojai and (6) Amit Kumar Das by order dated 29.09.2014. 8. Challenging the aforesaid order of framing charge, two petitioners herein are before this Court. The contentions raised in both the petitions are similar. 9. Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned counsel for the petitioner (Amitabh Rai Sarma) has argued the matter at length and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned counsel also adopted the argument put forwarded by Mr. Kamar. For the sake of brevity, their submissions discussed together. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the plain reading of 6 charge- sheets submitted by CBI and impugned order dated 29.09.2014, it will prima facie reveal that all the criminal acts have been attributed against other accused persons for commission of the alleged offence and uncontroverted allegations made in the charge-sheet and the materials/evidence submitted by the prosecution does not disclose the commission of any offence warranting framing of charge against the accused-petitioners. It is submitted that not a single prosecution witness has deposed any single word or uttered the name of accused-petitioners suggesting their involvement with the alleged offence, save and except the documents which are signed by them in discharge of their official duties. It is their contention that the accused-petitioners being disbursing officers has disbursed the fund for development of works to the range officer concerned and it is the duty of the range officers to take stock of the matter by making proper inspection of the various projects and schemes and the duty of the accused-petitioners is only to countersign the concerned bills. It contends, in absence of any material on record to indicate the participation of accused- petitioners in any criminal act, the accused-petitioners cannot be roped into the offence of cheating, misconduct etc. They were unaware, if bills and vouchers are false. 11. Elaborating the facts behind, it is submitted that Government of Assam for implementation of various scheme, like IJDP, WDPSCA, RKVY and State and Additive Plan, sanctioned various funds to the autonomous council and after receipt of such fund the council released the same to the respective disbursing officers as per budget allocation by way of cheque and thereafter the disbursing officer released the fund to the respective range officer, Soil Conservation under their control, by way of Account payee Cheque and the prosecution has not submitted any document to show that the disbursing officer has to inspect the scheme regarding implementation. Accordingly, it is stated that the accused-petitioners cannot be penalized for releasing of the money to the Govt. officials for carrying out various Govt. sponsored works. The accused-petitioners being disbursing officers in the relevant time have released the fund to the concerned range officers and thereafter they simply countersigned the bills submitted by range officers checked by the accountant of divisional officer, in discharge of their official duties and they were not responsible for any irregularity/illegality committed by the range officers in carrying out the works. Thus, it is stated that the accused-petitioners cannot be booked along with other accused-persons merely because they have countersigned the bills. 12. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the fact that payments are made by the range officers directly to the beneficiaries/suppliers/contractors engaged under the various schemes and it is the duty of the range officers to verify the execution of the works. The petitioners simply countersigned the bills so prepared by the accountant as per documents available in the office. Pleading innocence, both the accused-petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge framed by the learned trial court. 13. The petitioners simply countersigned the bills so prepared by the accountant as per documents available in the office. Pleading innocence, both the accused-petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charge framed by the learned trial court. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the court cannot act merely as post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution at the time of consideration of charge and the court must ensure that there is sufficient evidence upon which prosecution intends to rely to prove the guilt of the accused, unless challenged or rebutted by defence side. The court at the time of framing charge can evaluate the materials only to find out whether facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value disclose all ingredients of the offence and if two views are possible, the accused should not be put to trial. Further it is also contended that there should be material showing connection with the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the conspiracy under Section 120(B) IPC. 14. Relying on the decisions mentioned below, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no any evidence to show that the petitioners acted in connivance to gain wrongfully by abusing their power and position. (I) AIR 1972 SC 545 (Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra) (II) AIR 1977 SC 2018 (State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh) (III) (1979) 4 SCC 274 (Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affiars, W.B.- vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja) (IV) AIR 1979 SC 366 (Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Smal) (V) AIR 1980 SC 1382 (State vs. V.C. Shukla) (VI) (1990) Cr. L.J. 1869 (SC) (Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. State of Maharastra (VII) AIR 1990 SC 1962 (Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja) (VIII) (1997) 4 SCC 393 (State of Maharastra vs. Prya Sharan Maharaj) (IX) (1998) Cr. L. J. 1484 (DEL) (Mohd. Aqul vs. State) (X) (1999) Cr.L.J. 1638 (SC) (Vijayan @ Ranjan vs. State of Kerala (XI) AIR 2002 SC 564 (Dilawar Babu Kurane vs. State of Maharastra) (XII) (2009) 8 SCC 617 (State of M.P. vs. Shettla Sahai) (XIII) (2010) Cr.L.J. 1427 (P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala) (XIV) (2012) 2 GLT 164 (Bidhi Chand Dhiman -vs- CBI) 15. Refuting the contentions of petitioners, the learned standing counsel, CBI, (Mr. Refuting the contentions of petitioners, the learned standing counsel, CBI, (Mr. Keyal) has however drawn the attention of this Court to the content of the FIR as well as the various charge-sheets and the statement of witnesses (including one approver) and submitted that such contention made by the petitioners is merely a hoax. 16. Referring to the contents of the FIR, it has been submitted there is clear allegation of misappropriation of Govt. funds by the various departments including the Soil Conservation Department. So far as the allegation against the present two petitioners is concerned, it has been alleged that a total money of Rs.2 Crore was drawn by accused-petitioner, namely, Arup Rai (Divisional Soil Conservation Officer (DSCO)) (towards implementation of various schemes as mentioned above) who was posted in NC Hills for 17 years and his cousin brother namely, Amitabh Rai Sarma was made DSCO in his place, when he was sent to Diphu at the time of election, just to facilitate his return. The amount of work done was not even worth Rs. 50 Lacs and rest of the money went to DSD(J) Mohit Hojai and EM Subroto Hojai. 17. CBI has relied upon the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC in respect of the prosecution witnesses besides sufficient documentary evidence in respect of accused Arup Rai, the then Division Officer, Soil & Conservation, Maibang Division, Dima Hasao district, Assam and accused Amitabh Rai Sarma, which is discussed below: In his statement, Madhusudhan Bhattacharjee (who was accused in the case, has been made approver) has stated that his personal SBI Account No.AC 1185063496 was used to transfer heavy amount from the Govt. Account of Mahur, Maibang, Manderdisa, Soil Conservation Range, under Maibong Soil Conservation division many times during the relevant period and an amount of Rs.8 Lacs and 2 Lacs were transferred to his account from the Govt. account of Mahur range. Further, an amount of Rs.10 Lacs was transferred to his account in the month of April, 2008 and after 2/3 days, as per direction of accused Arup Rai, he encashed and deliver it to accused Arup Rai. Thus, many times, his account was used to deposit money from the Govt. accounts and he delivered the said amount to different accused persons from time to time. Thus, many times, his account was used to deposit money from the Govt. accounts and he delivered the said amount to different accused persons from time to time. In his statement, another witness, Namsampng Ngane has stated that an amount of Rs.2,48,141/- and Rs.4,88,137/- were shown to be paid by preparing false vouchers and bills for execution of bench terracing in village by Arup Rai and divisional officer, Maibong. All these bills were paid but no such work was executed as shown and the entire amount was misappropriate by accused Arup Rai and others. Another witness, Sumit Roy, Customer Relation Associate, SBI, Mahur has also stated that large amount of money was transferred/credited in the account of Arup Rai and the said amount was debited from Govt. account of the divisional officers, Soil Conservation Division, Maibong. The witness, Ranjit Daolagapu, has also stated about large number of vouchers that were prepared and shown to have paid to different persons for doing several works under different schemes, were totally false. He never received such amount that has been shown to be paid as per vouchers. Similarly, several other witnesses, Biman Thousen, Dongthar Thousen, Sumit Thousen has also stated all about the preparation of fake bills and vouchers in respect of different works in question (they have mentioned about the bills pertaining to the relevant period). The senior accountant, Bholaram Das, has also stated about different works executed under the different schemes during the period of accused Arup Rai and has identified the signature of accused Arup Rai and Amitabh Rai Sarma on the bills and vouchers including the fake bills and vouchers as stated by above witnesses. Other set of witnesses, namely, Nijon Johari, Hemon Jarambussa and one Sanjay Gupta denied to have received amount like Rs.1,96,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.44,800/- as shown in the bills as shown in the office file of the petitioners. They have specifically stated that no work was done in their village nor they were paid in respect of work in question. The witness, Kamal Gurung, who used to work as cook of both the accused-petitioners have stated that on the instruction of Amitabh Rai Sarma, division officer, he prepared fake bills copying from the bundles of old bills prepared earlier by accused Arup Rai and thus total 26 fake bills were prepared by him amounting to Rs.22.30 Lacs. The witness, Kamal Gurung, who used to work as cook of both the accused-petitioners have stated that on the instruction of Amitabh Rai Sarma, division officer, he prepared fake bills copying from the bundles of old bills prepared earlier by accused Arup Rai and thus total 26 fake bills were prepared by him amounting to Rs.22.30 Lacs. It is stated that in addition to above, Amitabh Rai Sarma himself prepared fake bills amounting to Rs.3,57,250/-. The gaonburah of Kepeloi village, Paujeing Newme has also stated that 12 bills pertaining to the work in question whereby different amount has been shown to have paid for the land reclamation work in his village is totally false as no such work was ever executed in their village. Similarly other witnesses that has been examined by the prosecution have given their statements during the course of investigation that less amount has been paid against certain bills and vouchers against the amount shown in the bills. 18. Thus, the learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that there are clinching evidence available both oral and documentary in addition to above to prove the criminal conduct of the present accused-petitioners with the offence alleged. There are sufficient documentary evidence that huge amount was deposited in the personal account of accused Arup Rai and Amitabh Rai Sarma during the relevant period. 19. As per record, the accused Arup Rai was holding the charge of divisional manager officer of Maibong division w.e.f. 27.06.2006 and to 18.10.2008 and as full fledge divisional officer w.e.f. 18.10.2008 to 5.03.09 and responsible for implementing the project of worth Rs.93.7 Lacs (during 2007-08) and Rs.80 Lacs under State Plan and Additive Plan (during 2008-09), Rs.17.05 Lacs under IJDP (during 2008-09), Rs.26.47 Lacs (during 2007- 08) and Rs.55.02(during 2008-09) under WDPSCA projects and Rs.10 Lacs (during 2008-09) under Rastriya Krishi Vikash Tojana. Accordingly, in total Rs.2.82 Cr. 20. As per record, Amitabh Rai Sarma was holding the charge of divisional officer, Maibang w.e.f. 6.3.2009 to 9.5.2010 and full fledge division officer of Maibang w.e.f. 10.5.2010 and continued till recording of his statement on 08.07.201. As such submission that petitioner was divisional officer for a very short period of time is totally false and he was responsible for implementing project worth Rs.1.50 Cr. As such submission that petitioner was divisional officer for a very short period of time is totally false and he was responsible for implementing project worth Rs.1.50 Cr. under State Plan and Non-Plan and Additive Plan and Rs.17.50 lakhs under Integrated Jhumia Development Project (IJDP) during 2008-09 and Rs.28.50 Lacs under WDPSCA projects during 2009-10 and in total Rs.1.96 Cr. 21. The arguments advanced by the petitioners side that all the money of the projects were directly paid to the accounts of range officers, Maibong, Mahur, Manderdisa range by Dima Hasao Autonomous Council is totally false and entire amount was paid to the account of divisional officer of Maibong, Soil Conservation Division and the same was released for payment to the three range offices. It is argued that as claimed by the petitioners that their role as DDO i.e. disbursing officer is totally false. Both of them during the relevant period not only performed as DDO but they were also overall in-charge for implementing the project under three range offices mentioned above and they cannot pleaded ignorance of fake preparation of bills and release of payment against such sanctioned project or irregularities or misappropriation of public money by officers. Both the petitioners were responsible as because payment cannot be released by Finance section without signature of divisional officer. One such fake bills were filed by both the petitioners at different period without execution of works at site and payment were made based on their certification. They even issued utilization certificate/progress report of the work in question while it was known to them that no work was executed at some places at all. They cannot get rid of such responsibility of irregularities and defrauding the public/government to siphon public money by raising fake/false bills and vouchers as indicated by the witnesses mentioned above. 22. It is also contended by the learned standing counsel, CBI that the contentions raised by the petitioners that they were not required to visit site cannot be accepted being incharge of soil conservation division having 3 rang offices under them. They cannot escape from the responsibility of proper implementation of the projects worth rupees multicrore issued to DO, Maibong division by autonomous council (as per documents annexed). As per government instruction before releasing second instalment of fund, the department should submit progress report both physical and financial achievement and utilization certificate scheme-wise. They cannot escape from the responsibility of proper implementation of the projects worth rupees multicrore issued to DO, Maibong division by autonomous council (as per documents annexed). As per government instruction before releasing second instalment of fund, the department should submit progress report both physical and financial achievement and utilization certificate scheme-wise. Both the accused petitioners submitted false financial achievement and utilization certificates and got released the subsequent payment and misappropriated the government money in collusion with 3 range officers. 23. The learned standing counsel, CBI (Mr. Keyal) has put forward his argument that in view of overwhelming oral and documentary evidence on record, as indicated above, there is sufficient ground for framing the charge against the accused-petitioners along with other accused and the learned trial court is justified in framing the charge. Relying to the recent decision (2019) 0 Supreme (SC) 262 (State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu vs. J. Doraiswamy etc.), it has been submitted that as no prima facie case is made out for discharge of the petitioners, they should stand to face the trial on merit on the basis of the documents and contents of chargesheet. The evidence is yet to be tested in course of trial and the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the case of the prosecution in course of trial. 24. Due consideration is given to the rival submissions of the parties and this Court has also gone through the Case Diary as well as the statement of witnesses and documents annexed thereto. 25. So far as the FIR is concerned, although initially there is name of one accused, Arup Rai as DO, Soil Conservation Department but in course of investigation, it has been found that the other accused Amitabh Rai Sarma, who succeeded Arup Rai to his post, equally discharged same duties and responsibilities towards disbursement of money under the schemes to the different range officers. While preferring the present petitions, the petitioners have made general submission denying their liability to supervise the works conducted by the range officers and that they simply countersigned the bills etc. as prepared by the office but it is to be noted that they have not at all referred to the statement of the witnesses, what has now been pointed out by the prosecution side. 26. as prepared by the office but it is to be noted that they have not at all referred to the statement of the witnesses, what has now been pointed out by the prosecution side. 26. As per the prosecution witnesses that has been discussed above, these two petitioners not only countersigned the bills prepared by the office on the basis of vouchers etc. but they were also involved in preparing such false vouchers and bills and they have submitted achievement and utilization certificate to the government showing the works being done whereas the witnesses like gaonburah etc. has stated that no such work was ever done and the beneficiaries, contractors etc. have also stated that they were not paid any amount/less amount against the vouchers prepared in respect of work in question. Over and above, there is valuable oral and documentary evidence to show that large amount of money which was given to the range officers for execution of the works under the schemes were again returned and entered into the personal account of the accused-petitioners at their behest. The statement of the approver also bears an impact to suggest the complicity of the accused-petitioners who happens to work under the accused-petitioners as per their direction. 27. From the statement of the prosecution witnesses, prima facie, complicity of the petitioners along with other accused in the offence alleged is made out. In all the charge- sheets different course of conduct of the two petitioners is reflected and lots of documents have been annexed in support of such allegation against the petitioners. There is hardly any substance in the contention that the DDO has no liability at all except countersigning the bills etc. 28. Scope and ambit of the provisions under Sections 227 & 228 of CrPC is discussed below : The Judge shall discharge the accused, if after - (i) considering the record of the case and the documents submitted and (ii) hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution considers that there is no ground for proceeding against the accused, i.e. either there is no legal evidence or that the facts do not make out any offence at all. There is no scope for examination of any witness but there is scope for both sides to argue their cases in favour of framing charge or discharge. The Judge shall also record reasons of discharge. There is no scope for examination of any witness but there is scope for both sides to argue their cases in favour of framing charge or discharge. The Judge shall also record reasons of discharge. Reading Section 227 and 228 CrPC together in juxtaposition at the initial stage, the Court is not meticulously to judge the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution and not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence are something like even, ordinarily and generally the order will have to be made under Section 228 and not under Section 227 CrPC. The charge should not be framed in cases where the available material does not disclose the ingredients of the offence, framing of charge in such cases is an exercise in futility and results in wasting valuable time of the court. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be finally applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 & 228 CrPC. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials leading the Magistrate to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 227, 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, total effect of the evidence and the documents produced, any basic infirmities and find out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The Judge 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. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depended on the facts of the case. By and large, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to some suspicion is not grave, he will be fully justified in discharging the accused. The Judge is bound to discharge the accused if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. By and large, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to some suspicion is not grave, he will be fully justified in discharging the accused. The Judge is bound to discharge the accused if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The trial Court has to be satisfied whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not "whether there is sufficient ground for conviction". The Court is required to evaluate materials on record with a view to ascertain existence of ingredients constituting offence. 29. In Suresh vs. State of Maharashtra [MANU/SC/0172/2001: (2001) 3 SCC 703 ], Honble Supreme Court after taking note of the earlier judgments in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v.s Jitendra Bhimraj Bijaya (1990) 4 SCC 76 and State of Maharastra vs. Priya Sharan Maharaj (1997) 4 SCC 393 held that at the stage of Sections 227 & 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom 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 the initial stage to accept all that he prosecution states as the gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense of 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 no sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is likely to lead to conviction. 30. Similar view is reiterated in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharastra (2002) 2 SCC 135 that at the stage of framing charge, court has to consider the broad probability of the case, total effect of the evidence and documents produced before the court but the court should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh evidence as if it is conducting a trial. 31. 31. In Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 , it has been observed that the court has to see whether materials brought on record reasonably connect the accused with the offence and nothing more is required to be enquired. The same view has been reiterated in subsequent decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), (2018) 16 SCC 299 . 32. In recent decision of State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Medhu, AIR 2017 SC 796 , the Honble Supreme Court has held that in a challenge to framing of charge with a prayer to quashing thereof by invoking the provisions of Section 397/482 CrPC, the High Court should not unduly interfere in the matter of framing of charge for exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC and although there is no limit of power under Section 482 CrPC, the same is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases. It has further been held that quashing of charge is an exception to the Rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 33. In the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (2018) (supra) has also emphasised that challenge to the order of charge should be entertained in rarest or rare cases only to correct the patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. 34. Considering all entirety of the matter and having regard to the materials relied by prosecution as discussed above and the broad probabilities of the case and the materials brought on record, the accused-petitioners can be reasonably connected with the offence alleged. The learned trial court is justified in raising serious doubt about the complicity of the present two accused-petitioners in the given facts and circumstances, which is not compatible with the innocence of the accused. Once the court satisfied about the existence of constituents of an offence, there is no bar for raising presumption about commission of the offence by framing charge. Once the court satisfied about the existence of constituents of an offence, there is no bar for raising presumption about commission of the offence by framing charge. The court at the stage of framing charge under Section 228 of the Code, is not concerned with the proof but merely strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence. Final test of guilt is not applied at the stage of framing charge. 35. In the instant case, the materials before the court is enough to proceed with a trial by framing charge and this Court found no substance in the challenge made in these two petitions. 36. In the light of the above discussions, both the petitions are dismissed with a direction to the petitioners to stand the trial.