ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by CBI aggrieved from order dated 31.01.2004 in criminal case No. 05/2003 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SPE) Cases, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby the respondent was discharged from charge under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that respondent was working as a public servant and during his posting he misused his official position and wrongly issued stock investment in the name of self, family members and relatives, as a result, the bank was forced to make payments to other companies, resulting in loss to bank. He submitted that against all settled norms, the Trial Court has considered the matters on merits at the stage of charge and discharged the respondent-accused from the charge without opportunity of leading evidence to prove the charge. He further submitted that the action of Trial Court is contrary to settled proposition of law. He further submitted that at the stage of charge, the Trial Court is required to consider the material for the purpose of framing the charge but it has no power to adjudicate the matter on merits on the basis of material forwarded by investigation agency. 3. None present for the respondent despite service. 4. Heard learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and perused the material available on record. 5. On basis of investigation in a matter arising out of FIR No. 02-A-96 dated 08.01.1996, the CBI has filed a charge-sheet against respondent-accused under Section 420, 408 and 471 IPC. While considering the stage of charge on 31.01.2004, learned ACJM (SPE) Cases, Jaipur has discharged the respondent from the charge under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 6. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. : (1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398 . Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. : (1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398 . It was held that 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. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 7. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge 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. 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. 8. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. 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. 8. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf ( 2023 INSC 555 ) , it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge of application. 9. The legal position clearly suggests that a roving inquiry is impermissible at the stage of charge. A roving inquiry means an investigation or inquiry that is overly broad, indiscriminate and without specific focus and it is a process where the Court below engages a fishing expedition or a general search of evidence rather focused on investigation based concrete opinion. Herein, this Court the Trial Court has not only considered the issue of jurisdiction but also referred various circulars including provisions relating to power of investigation by CBI. The Trial Court has referred notices to the Investigating Officer and further on basis of subsequent events while referring various circumstances and without considering the facts of the case drawn a conclusion that offence as charge is not made out. 10. The Trial Court has overlooked the principle required to be considered at the stage of charge. Section 239 of Cr.P.C. provides the provisions of discharge and in case there is no case of discharge then only a charge can be framed but herein this case, the Trial Court without considering the material on record has discharged the respondent-accused, therefore, the order is perverse, illegal and contrary to material available on record. 11. In view of discussions made herein-above, the instant revision petition is hereby allowed and order dated 31.01.2004 in criminal case No. 05/2003 is set aside. 12. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of matter from the stage of charge. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 23.06.2025. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.