ORDER : The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 23.06.2016 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G.R. Case No.251 of 2014 arising out of Baghmara P.S Case No.13 of 2014 by which their application for discharge has been rejected. 2. In the order dated 23.06.2016, the learned trial Judge has observed thus; "Perused the case record, heard both the parties the FIR was lodged by informant Umesh Ram and on the basis of that Baghmara PS Case No.13/14 was registered on 17.01.14 u/s 414/34 IPC against both the petitioners alleging therein both the petitioners have deposed the illegal theft coal and seizure list From police prepared of 120 tonnes steam coal which was recovered from M/s Ganjanand Malticum, PS Baghmara from coal Bhatta. The police has investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against both the accused persons u/s 414/120(B)/34 of IPC From perusal of case diary it appears from para 4,5, 7,8,9,12,13,14,15,19,20 there is sufficient material available against both the accused persons and all witnesses have supported the prosecution case and accordingly cognizance was also taken against these petitioners u/s 414/120(B)/34 on the basis of material available on the record. So, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on the record to Fame charge against the above named accused petitioners u/s 414/120(B)/34 IPC Hence, the petition for discharge, filed on behalf of both the above named petitioners is hereby disposed of as rejected. 3. In Baghmara P.S Case No.13 of 2014 which was lodged on 17.01.2014 for the offence under section 414 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the petitioners were made accused on an allegation that they were in possession of 120 Tonnes of steam coal which according to the prosecution appeared to be a stolen property. 4. The petitioner no. 1 approached this Court in A.B.A No.1613 of 2014 and by an order dated 07.10.2014 the investigating officer was directed to examine the documents which Rajesh Kumar Yadav claimed that would establish that the seized coal was validly procured by him. The order dated 13.01.2015 by which Rajesh Kumar Yadav was granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would record that the report produced by the investigating officer shows that the seized coal was validly purchased. A copy of the report dated 06.01.2015 has been produced on record. The order dated 13.01.2015 by which Rajesh Kumar Yadav was granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would record that the report produced by the investigating officer shows that the seized coal was validly purchased. A copy of the report dated 06.01.2015 has been produced on record. Before the trial Court, a specific plea was raised by the petitioners on the basis of this report that there is no legally admissible material on record to frame charges against them. Unfortunately, this plea was not adverted to by the learned trial Judge and by stating that in course of investigation the witnesses have supported the prosecution case the discharge application was dismissed. The procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge cannot be appreciated. When a plea is specifically raised and document is produced, the learned trial Judge was required to advert to the same and return a finding. The report submitted by the investigating officer in the proceeding of A.B.A No.1613 of 2014 has become part of the case records and the accused is entitled to rely on it. As observed in the order dated 13.01.2015 that the seized coal was validly purchased, in my opinion, a charge under sections 414/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be framed against the petitioners and, accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners seeking discharge in G.R Case No. 251 of 2014 is allowed. 5. The impugned order dated 23.06.2016 is set-aside. 6. Criminal Revision No.955 of 2016 is allowed. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.