JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the petitioners personally undertakes that he will deposit a court fee of Rs. 80/- and also undertakes to deposit the Advocate’s Welfare Fund Stamp etc. as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks from today and further submits that the other defects are minor in nature. Hence, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter be ignored. 3. Keeping in view the personal undertaking of Mr. Pankaj Kumar Dubey to deposit the court fee and Advocate’s Welfare Fund Stamp etc. as pointed out by the stamp reporter, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter is ignored. 4. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.01.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.) Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 18 of 2008 arising out of Husainabad P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 983 of 2008 whereby and where under the learned court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. 5. The brief facts of the case is that all the five petitioners of this revision petition were posted as Revenue Karmachari on the alleged date of occurrence. The case has been instituted on the basis of the complaint submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Husainabad alleging therein that the petitioners lifted rice during the period February, 2006 to March, 2006 for distribution under the Anpurna Yojna and rice was to be distributed amongst the people below the poverty line and the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have submitted utilization certificate for distribution of rice to all the 1918 beneficiaries of different Halkas and Villages which includes several dead persons also, though in fact the rice lifted by them were not actually distributed to all the beneficiaries in whose respect utilization certificate was submitted. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have maintained the documents properly and they have not misappropriated any rice under the scheme and the shortfall of rice found upon physical verification of the stock from the godown; is because of the laches of the co-accused persons. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have maintained the documents properly and they have not misappropriated any rice under the scheme and the shortfall of rice found upon physical verification of the stock from the godown; is because of the laches of the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the cognizance against one of the co-accused namely Sateyndra Narayan Singh who was the Circle Inspector at the relevant time has been quashed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014, passed in Cr. M.P. No. 965 of 2008 and the learned trial court though has mentioned that another co-accused Rajeshwar Yadav was directly involved in the offence, yet the trial court has erroneously rejected the prayer of the petitioners to be discharged in the case. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 21.01.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B.) Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No. 18 of 2008 arising out of Husainabad P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 983 of 2008 be set aside and the petitioners be discharged. 7. Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, the learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the Vigilance on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that the allegation against the co-accused Sateyndra Narayan Singh entirely stands on a different footing than the allegations against the present petitioners, as the said Sateyndra Narayan Singh was no way related to distribution of rice to the beneficiaries rather his role was confined only to collect the rice from the godown of Food Corporation of India and to keep the same in the godown of Husainabad and the illegality by supplying the rice has been committed by these petitioners as well as other co-accused persons of this case. It is next submitted by Mr. Praveen Kumar Appu, that as mentioned in the said order dated 03.04.2014 in Cr. M.P. No. 965 of 2008 itself, the case diary reveals that the co-accused Sateyndra Narayan Singh has limited role, hence it is submitted by Mr. Appu that keeping in view the limited scope of discharge of an accused if there is specific allegation against him, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. M.P. No. 965 of 2008 itself, the case diary reveals that the co-accused Sateyndra Narayan Singh has limited role, hence it is submitted by Mr. Appu that keeping in view the limited scope of discharge of an accused if there is specific allegation against him, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners for discharge. Hence, it is submitted that this Court ought not interfere with the impugned order in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after carefully going through the record, it is found that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of being responsible for distribution of rice under the Anpurna Yojna to the beneficiaries including some dead persons and having also submitted the utilization certificate regarding distribution of the said rice to the dead persons which was found from the relevant records during the enquiry. 9. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court should not go for a mini enquiry and rather consider the materials to find out if there is a grave suspicion regarding involvement of the petitioners in the case and if sufficient material is in the record that there is a grave suspicion of the petitioners being involved in the offence then charge has to be framed. It is also a settled principle of law that an accused cannot refer to his defence at the time of framing of charge to persuade the court to discharge him, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru, (2020) 2 SCC 768 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law regarding discharging an accused as under in paragraph 17, 28 and 29: “17. This is an area covered by a large body of case law. We refer to a recent judgment which has referred to the earlier decisions, viz. P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2010) 2 SCC 398 and discern the following principles: 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution. 17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court. 17.4. 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 offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.” 17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion. 17.6. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons. 17.7. 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. 17.8. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.” 28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that we remind ourselves of the contours of the jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The principle established is to take the materials produced by the prosecution, both in the form of oral statements and also documentary material and act upon it without it been subjected to questioning through cross-examination and everything assumed in favour of the prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no offence, as alleged, is made out against the accused, it, undoubtedly, would enure to the benefit of the accused warranting the trial court to discharge the accused. 29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. 29. It is not open to the accused to rely on the material by way of defence and persuade the court to discharge him. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Perusal of the record reveals that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of being Revenue Karmachari have lifted rice to be distributed to persons below the poverty line under Annapurna Yojana but have misappropriated the same by submitting utilization certificates showing distribution of rice to all beneficiaries including dead persons. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and law as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this revision petition, being without any merit is dismissed.