JUDGMENT : The present criminal revision petition is preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] and Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, being aggrieved by dismissal of her application, I.A. no. 181 of 2023 preferred under Section 239, CrPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima by an Order dated 07.12.2023. 2. The petitioner who has been charge-sheeted as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016, arising out of State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016, preferred the application, I.A. no. 181 of 2023 under Section 239, CrPC seeking her discharge as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016. By the Order dated 07.12.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kohima [‘the trial court’, for short] after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application for discharge and thereafter, proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner as an accused, B-5 in G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016 by an Order dated 06.05.2024. By the Order dated 06.05.2024, the learned trial court framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 468/34, Indian Penal Code [IPC], Section 471/34, IPC and Section 409/34, IPC. 3. It may be stated that after registration of State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016, investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation into the case, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 finding a prima facie for commission of various offences, stated therein, by 16 [sixteen] nos. of accused, named therein as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9 and B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6 & B-7. The petitioner has been arraigned in the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 as the accused, B-5. On submission of the said Charge-Sheet, the learned trial court took cognizance on it for the offences under Sections 420/120B/409/467/ 468/471, IPC on 22.08.2022. 4. Challenges have been made by the petitioner in this criminal revision petition to :- [i] the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 in so far the petitioner as accused is concerned; [ii] the Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned trial court, whereby, it took cognizance on the Charge-Sheet no. 4. Challenges have been made by the petitioner in this criminal revision petition to :- [i] the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 in so far the petitioner as accused is concerned; [ii] the Order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned trial court, whereby, it took cognizance on the Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021 and issued processes against the charge-sheeted accused persons in the petitioner herein as accused no. B-5; [iii] the Order dated 07.12.2023 whereby, the learned trial court rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioner as accused no. B-5; and [iv] the Order dated 06.05.2024, whereby charges, mentioned above, have been framed against the petitioner as the accused no. B-5 by the learned trial court. 5. I have heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Nagaland; and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General, Nagaland for the respondent no. 2. 6. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined the State services as far back as on 27.03.1984 as a Junior Account Assistant and after serving in different capacities at various places and at various offices on being transferred and/or promoted, the petitioner retired from service as a Sub-Treasury Officer, Changtongya on 31.10.2018 on reaching the age of superannuation. It was after her retirement, the impugned Charge-Sheet no. 10 came to be laid on 02.12.2021 in connection with State Crime Police Station Case no. 1 of 2016. The FIR was registered at the instance of an official of the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland alleging financial irregularities committed at Zunheboto District Treasury Office by fraudulent withdrawal of pensions, etc. on the basis of fabricated documents and forgery of signatures of officials of the Accountant General’s Office. The FIR indicated about occurrence of forgery in District Treasury Office at Zunheboto and the Charge-Sheet no. 10 specifically mentioned about commission of financial fraud at the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto. It is the case of the petitioner that at no point of time, the petitioner served in the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto as a Sub-Treasury Officer. The FIR indicated about occurrence of forgery in District Treasury Office at Zunheboto and the Charge-Sheet no. 10 specifically mentioned about commission of financial fraud at the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto. It is the case of the petitioner that at no point of time, the petitioner served in the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto as a Sub-Treasury Officer. At the relevant point of time when such alleged illegal financial transactions took place in the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto, the petitioner was never posted there as during that point of time the petitioner was serving as a Sub-Treasury Officer in the District Treasury Office, Zunheboto. As such, the petitioner could not have been implicated as an accused in the Charge-Sheet. The fact that the petitioner did not serve as a Sub-Treasury Officer in the Akuluto Sub-Treasury was brought to the notice of the learned trial court in the application for discharge. By improper application of mind, the learned trial court had ignored the said fact and rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge and thereafter, proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that when the petitioner did not discharge in her duties in the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto at any point of time and all the alleged financial illegalities took place only in the said office, the petitioner could not have been implicated for such alleged illegal financial transactions. 7. Both Ms. Mere and Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for the respondents’ sides have submitted that the learned trial court after due consideration of the materials on record, that is, the Charge-Sheet and the documents submitted therewith had found the prayer for discharge as a non-merited one. It has been submitted that at the relevant point of time, the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto was functioning from Zunheboto under the District Treasury Office of Zunheboto. It has been pointed out that in the Charge-Sheet, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] had clearly mentioned that the petitioner was serving as the Sub-Treasury Officer of Akuluto Sub-Treasury [Camp - Zunheboto Treasury Office] during the relevant period from May, 2013 to March, 2016 and it was during that time, the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with her subordinate staff to prepare forged bills, Pension Payment Orders, etc. and to make fraudulent withdrawal of a huge amount, which has been quantified at Rs. 82,89,965/-. and to make fraudulent withdrawal of a huge amount, which has been quantified at Rs. 82,89,965/-. The learned counsel for the respondents have further contended that a large number of documents were seized during the course of investigation and after seizure, they were sent for forensic examination. As per the Report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory [CFSL], there were positive findings to the effect that the signatures of the petitioner were present in a large number of documents, which were allegedly forged and fabricated. Contending as above, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that it is not a case of discharge as the charges against the petitioner are not groundless and as such, there is no merit in the present criminal revision petition. 8. The scanned copies of the case records of G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016, requisitioned by an Order dated 06.06.2024, have been received. 9. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the materials available in the case records of G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016. 10. The First Information Report [FIR] was registered on 22.04.2016. The said FIR was filed by an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Accountant General, Kohima, Nagaland. In the said FIR, it was inter-alia alleged that during the audit of pension payment vouchers in respect of Zunheboto Treasury, it was noticed that there were abnormal delays between the dates of drawal and the dates of issue of authorisation. Scrutiny of the same revealed that a large nos. of fraudulent withdrawals of pensions were made on the basis of fabricated documents and forged signatures of the Officials of the Office of the Accountant General, Nagaland. Four different methods of fraudulent drawal of pensions were detected. On the basis of the said FIR, the State Crime Police Station [SCPS], PHQ, Kohima registered a regular case, SCPS Case no. 01/2016 for the offences under Sections 420/120B/409/469/471, IPC on 22.04.2016. Four different methods of fraudulent drawal of pensions were detected. On the basis of the said FIR, the State Crime Police Station [SCPS], PHQ, Kohima registered a regular case, SCPS Case no. 01/2016 for the offences under Sections 420/120B/409/469/471, IPC on 22.04.2016. After registration of the FIR, a Special Investigation Team [SIT] was constituted vide an Order dated 25.04.2016 to carry out proper investigation into the allegations and the SIT was headed by the Superintendent of Police [Crime] as the Team Leader; the Deputy Superintendent of Police [Cyber] as a Member & Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case; and one Inspector of Police as a Member. After carrying out the investigation and seizure of a large number of documents, the SIT finding a prima facie case for the offences, mentioned hereinabove, against 16 nos. of accused persons, who are shown as A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 & A-9 and B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6 & B-7 against their names, the I.O. of the case submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 10 dated 02.12.2021. 11. In so far as the petitioner is concerned who has been arraigned as the accused, B-5, the said Charge-Sheet had reported as under :- 16.18[1] Investigation has divulged that while accused Mrs. Lima-Angla Ao @ Limangla @ Limainla [B-5] was serving as the Sub-Treasury Officer of Akuluto Sub-Treasury [Camp - Zunheboto Treasury Office] during the alleged period from May, 2013 to March, 2016 has entered into criminal conspiracy with her subordinate staff, namely, [1] Mr. Kughato [A-3], Sr.A.A.; [2] Mr. Viniho [A-4], Acctt. Zbto Treasury; [3] Mr. Y. Samuel Chopy [B-6], Sr.A.A.; [4] Mr. Kahoto [A-5], A.A.; [5] Mr. Kumar Rai [B-1], STO, Aghunato; and [6] Mr. Heshito Sema [A-2], STO, Zunheboto Treasury, and in furtherance of their conspiracy with malafide and dishonest intention, accused Mrs. Lima-Angla [B-5] has procured fake and forged pension payment bills which are marked as L-1 to L-461. She [Lima-Angla B-5] has directed her subordinate staff [above cited] to prepare these forged bills and put up to her for approval and payment. Accordingly, they have fraudulently withdrawn huge amount to the tune of Rs. Lima-Angla [B-5] has procured fake and forged pension payment bills which are marked as L-1 to L-461. She [Lima-Angla B-5] has directed her subordinate staff [above cited] to prepare these forged bills and put up to her for approval and payment. Accordingly, they have fraudulently withdrawn huge amount to the tune of Rs. 82,89,965/- [in words : Rupees Eighty two lakhs eighty nine thousand nine hundred sixty five] only, and has thus, incurred huge wrongful loss to the Government exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to herself [Lima-Angla B-5] and her subordinate staff [cited above]. In the process of investigation, all the above cited accused persons were summoned and recorded their detail statement, wherein, they have confirmed their involvement. The subordinate staffs [mentioned above] have stated that as directed, they have prepared the shown pension bills with their signatures affixed on all these bills marked L-1 to L-461 and put up to Mrs. Lima-Angla Ao [B-5], the then STO, Akuluto, who has approved it for payment. The said Pension Payment Orders L-1 to L-461 [Lima-Angla B-5] have the seal and signature of the Branch Manager, SBI, Zunheboto thereby establishing that the fake/forged bills were honoured and fraudulent drawal was done. 16.18[2] The accused Smti. Lima-Angla B-5 has approved the Fake Pension Payment Orders and Multiple Drawal of Pension against same Pension Payment Order, which were processed by the staff of Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto for fraudulent drawal as this does not require the authorization of AG Office. 16.18[3] The Witnesses marked P.W.1 to 9, 35, 36, 37, 40 & 41 will prove that fake/forged bills were prepared and fraudulent withdrawal was done in respect of L-1 to L-461 [Lima-Angla B-5]. The Witnesses marked P.W.10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 33, will prove that the pensioners have received only one monthly pension payment and they are not beneficiaries to multiple monthly pension payments against their Pension Payment order Numbers. 12. When the petitioner preferred the application, I.A. no. 181/2012 seeking her discharge as an accused, B-5 before the learned trial court, the petitioner submitted all the relevant documents regarding her appointment, transfer, promotion, etc. One of such documents was an Order dated 17.07.2013 issued by the Finance Department [Treasuries & Accounts Branch], Government of Nagaland. By the said Order dated 17.07.2013, transfers and postings of 64 nos. of officers were effected. One of such documents was an Order dated 17.07.2013 issued by the Finance Department [Treasuries & Accounts Branch], Government of Nagaland. By the said Order dated 17.07.2013, transfers and postings of 64 nos. of officers were effected. By the said Order, the petitioner who was serving earlier as a Treasury Accountant at Mokokchung Treasury, was shown promoted as a Sub-Treasury Officer and posted at the District Treasury Office at Zunheboto. The learned trial court considered the said submission of the petitioner and also took note of the statement made at Paragraph 16.18[1] of the Charge-Sheet wherein it was stated that the investigation had divulged that the petitioner was serving as the Sub-Treasury Officer at the Sub-Treasury, Akuluto [Camp - Zunheboto Treasury Office] during the alleged period from May, 2013 to March, 2016 and rejected the contention advanced by the petitioner that she could not have been implicated for the offences allegedly committed only at the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto. The learned trial court had recorded that during the alleged period, the petitioner was posted at Zunheboto and the Charge-Sheet had reflected that she was serving as the Sub-Treasury Officer, Akuluto Sub-Treasury, Camp - Zunheboto Treasury Office and since the petitioner, B-5 was posted at Zunheboto during the period alleged, it would be premature to deicide the said aspect at the stage envisaged by Section 239, CrPC and the same ought to be considered during the course of the trial. It is, thus, discernible that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the materials available in the case records of G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016 received due consideration of the learned trial court. 13. By the Order dated 06.05.2024, the learned trial court framed the following charges against the petitioner :- First – that, during the period May, 2013 to March, 2016, when you were the Sub-Treasury Officer, Akuluto, in furtherance of your common intention with B-6, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1 [deceased] & A-2, prepared fraudulent pension related bills and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 468/34, IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly – that during the period May, 2013 to March, 2016, when you were the Sub-Treasury Officer, Akuluto, in furtherance of your common intention with B-6, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1 [deceased] & A-2, used as genuine the forged pension related bills and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 471/34, IPC and within my cognizance. Secondly – that during the period May, 2013 to March, 2016, when you were the Sub-Treasury Officer, Akuluto, in furtherance of your common intention with B-6, A-3, A-4, A-5, B-1 [deceased] & A-2, used as genuine the forged pension related bills and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 471/34, IPC and within my cognizance. Thirdly – that during the period May, 2013 to March, 2016, when you were the Sub-Treasury Officer, Akuluto, in furtherance of your of your common intention with B-6, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-1 [deceased] & A-2, committed criminal breach of trust against the Government of Nagaland to the tune of Rs. 82,89,965/- and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 409/34, IPC and within my cognizance. And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charges under Sections 468/471/409/34, IPC. 14. During the course of the investigation, as noticed from the scanned copies of the case records of G.R. Case no. 80 of 2016, a large number of documents were seized from various offices including the offices of the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto and the District Treasury Office, Zunheboto. After such search and seizure, some of those documents were sent for examination as Questioned Documents to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory [CFSL]. After examination, the CFSL forwarded its opinion to the SIT through a number of reports. In the Charge-Sheet, at Paragraph 16.18[1], it has been reported that the petitioner had procured fake and forged Pension Payment bills and during investigation, the same were seized and were marked as L - 1 to L - 461. It has been reported that the petitioner had directed her subordinate staff to prepare those forged bills and put up to her for approval and payment. As a result, an amount of Rs. 82,89,965/- were fraudulently withdrawn, thereby, causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain allegedly to the petitioner and her subordinate staff. The Pension Payment Orders and other related documents, marked as document nos. L - 1 to L – 461, had the seals and signatures of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Zunheboto and the same had gone to establish that the fake/forged bills were honoured and fraudulent drawals were mode. The Pension Payment Orders and other related documents, marked as document nos. L - 1 to L – 461, had the seals and signatures of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Zunheboto and the same had gone to establish that the fake/forged bills were honoured and fraudulent drawals were mode. It was further reported that the petitioner had approved the fake Pension Payment Orders and multiple drawal of pension against same Pension Payment Orders which were processed by the staff of the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto for fraudulent drawals. 14.1. The CFSL had given its finding in respect of Q - 57 to Q - 70, Q - 70, Q - 217 & Q- 218, A-24 to A-28 and S-92 to S-101 [in respect of Lima-Angla as in L-1, 23, 28, 28A, 41, 51, 57, 64, 72, 77, 87, 132 - 27 sheets] vide its Report no. CFSL 10 and as per its opinion based on scientific analysis, the signatures appearing in those Questioned Documents [27 sheets] were of the petitioner. The prosecution has also referred to the statements of the proposed prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.9, P.W.35, P.W.36, P.W.37, P.W.40 and P.W.41 to submit that reliance would be placed on those statements in order to bring the charges home against the petitioner, that is, the accused, B-5 as regards fraudulent withdrawal of money and fabrication and forgery of the documents. 15. The provisions of Section 239, CrPC has laid down about the situation under which an accused can be discharged in a trial of warrant case by a Magistrate. It has been provided that if, upon considering the Police Report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he can discharge the accused by recording the reasons for doing so. 16. What are to be considered at the stage of hearing a prayer for discharge are clearly mentioned in Section 239, CrPC. At that stage, the trial court does not frame the charge. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges, entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. 16. What are to be considered at the stage of hearing a prayer for discharge are clearly mentioned in Section 239, CrPC. At that stage, the trial court does not frame the charge. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges, entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. It is not necessary for the trial court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities. The trial court has merely to sift the materials, mentioned in Section 239, CrPC, in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the I.O. or the documents produced before the court to find out whether they ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him or not. 17. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.R. Hiremath, reported in [2019] 7 SCC 515, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- 25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : 29. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : 29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. 18. Section 468, IPC has inter-alia provided for punishment for commission of forgery of documents. To attract Section 468, IPC, forgery must be committed with the intention that the document shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The ingredients to attract the offence defined under Section 468, IPC are : firstly, the document is forged; secondly, the accused forged the document; and thirdly, the accused forged the document intending that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Where a forced document is fraudulently or dishonestly used as a genuine document, the offence under Section 471, IPC is held to be committed. The ingredients to attract the offence relating to a forged document under Section 471, IPC are : [i] the document is a forged one; [ii] the accused used the document as genuine; [iii] the accused knew or had reason to belief that it was a forged document; and [iv] the accused used it fraudulently or dishonestly, knowing or having reason to believe, that it was a forged document. Section 405, IPC defines criminal breach of trust and a person who commits criminal breach of trust is punished under Section 406, IPC. Section 409, IPC is attracted when the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed by a public servant. Section 405, IPC defines criminal breach of trust and a person who commits criminal breach of trust is punished under Section 406, IPC. Section 409, IPC is attracted when the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed by a public servant. In order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it is to be established that the accused was entrusted with the property or with dominion or power over the property of another and that he dishonestly misappropriated it or converted to his own use. To constitute the offence under Section 409, IPC, the facts in respect of a public servant which are to be proved are, firstly, the accused was a public servant; secondly, the accused was entrusted in such capacity with the property; and thirdly, the accused committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the property entrusted. Therefore, to attract Section 409, IPC, it is to be proved that a person entrusted with property or with any dominion over property, in his capacity as public servant commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, as defined in Section 405, IPC, meaning thereby, that he dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Section 34, IPC has not created any specific offence and it is a rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit a crime in furtherance of a common intention, each of them will be liable as if each of them had done the act separately and each will be liable constructively for the act in the manner as if it were done by him alone. 19. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 239, CrPC as well as Section 227, CrPC and the materials collected against the accused, B-5, as stated in the Charge-Sheet, especially at Paragraph nos. 19. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 239, CrPC as well as Section 227, CrPC and the materials collected against the accused, B-5, as stated in the Charge-Sheet, especially at Paragraph nos. 16.18[1] to 16.18[3]; and the positive opinion reported in the CFSL Report as regards the presence of signatures of the petitioner in a large numbers of documents, allegedly forged and fabricated, in order to siphon out money from the State Exchequer by way of those forged and fabricated documents vis-à-vis the ingredients of the offences defined in Section 468, Section 471 and Section 409 of the IPC, read with Section 34, IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able make out a case, not to speak of a prima facie case, the allegations made against the petitioner are groundless for her discharge from the offences under Section 468/34, IPC, Section 471/34, IPC and Section 409/34, IPC which have already been framed against her on 27.09.2023. It has emerged that the Sub-Treasury Office, Akuluto at the relevant point of time was functioning with the District Treasury Office, Zunheboto. The fact that whether the petitioner was not serving as a Sub-Treasury Officer in the Sub-Treasury Office, Akutulo at the relevant point of time, as claimed by the petitioner, can only be unearthed during the course of the trial on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and such a finding of facts cannot be reached at the stage of considering a discharge application. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Court does not find the case set up against the accused, B-5 to be a merited one. 20. Having found the case of the petitioner to be not a merited one, this criminal revision petition is bound to fail. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petitioner is dismissed.