JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State. 2. By filing this petition under Section 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17.08.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 12 (L) of 2012 pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, whereby, the charges against the present petitioners were discharged. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Shri Aduk Paron, the then Divisional Forest Officer, Namsai Forest Division, Namsai has lodged an FIR before the Police alleging that on 28.01.2011, two trucks, without any number plates, carrying illegal logs were detain at Medo Forest Range. It is stated in the FIR that one of the drivers made a disclosure that they were taking the logs to Lapto Saw Mill which is located in the Medo Industrial estate. Both the drivers of the trucks took the informant to the Medo Forest Depot for seizure of the logs but on their way one of the drivers ran away leaving behind the truck. The other driver was Krishna Gurung. 4. The informant Aduk Paron has further alleged that some miscreants had taken away the 2 (two) trucks containing illegal logs. It is further alleged that on 30.01.2011, 5 (five) youths had broken the left side glass of his official Gypsy vehicle bearing registration No.AR11-1366. 5. On conclusion of investigation, the Police filed their Charge-Sheet against the present petitioners and the learned Trial Court framed the Charges against the petitioners under Sections 353/323/427/395/177 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Now, against the framing of this charge, the present petition has been filed. 7. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the charges were framed unnecessarily against the petitioners as because the learned Court below did not properly go through the materials available in the record. Mr. Dutta had thoroughly deliberated upon the materials available with the record. 8. Per contra, the learned Addl. PP has supported the view taken by the learned Trial Court. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the revision petition lies, at this stage. 10. Mr. Dutta had thoroughly deliberated upon the materials available with the record. 8. Per contra, the learned Addl. PP has supported the view taken by the learned Trial Court. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. The only point for consideration in this case is as to whether the revision petition lies, at this stage. 10. The Section 397(1) in the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as -- wxyz (1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order,- recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.- All Magistrates whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub- section and of section 398. zyxw 11. Again Section 397(2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure may be read --- wxyz (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub- section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. zyxw 12. In Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (2002) AIR SC 107 , it has been held by the Supreme Court as under: wxyz "3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, (2000) CriLJ 746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges." zyxw 13. The Supreme Court has recently in the case Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs State of Gujarat and Another, decided on 24.4.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019 made observations regarding the law relating to framing of charge and discharge and has held that all that is required is, that the Court must be satisfied that with the material available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. 14. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is reproduced below: wxyz "13. We may profitably, in this regard, refer to the judgment of this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) AIR SC 2018 wherein this Court has laid down the principles relating to framing of charge and discharge as follows: Reading Sections 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the Accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the Accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the Accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter Under Section 227 or Section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the Accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the Accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. zyxw wxyz Strong suspicion against the Accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the Accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. The presumption of the guilt of the Accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the Accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. zyxw wxyz If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the Accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the Accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. zyxw wxyz 21. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the Court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the Court dons the mantle of the Trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a fullfledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the Accused. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the Accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. All that is required is, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the Accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that Accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the Accused has committed the offence." zyxw 14. Reverting to the case in hand, being a revisional Court, I find that there is no requirement of going through the evidence available in the record. This Court does not sit on appeal at this stage. The law on the point is well settled. For framing charge in a criminal case a strong suspicion is suffices. This Court is concerned with only one point as to whether the Trial Court has committed jurisdictional or legal error. There is none. Therefore, I do not find that the Trial Court has committed any error by framing charges against the petitioners. Therefore, I find that this revision petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, this petition stands dismissed. wxyz Send back the LCRs. zyxw