JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.C.B. 2 . This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1584 of 2024 in connection with Vigilance (Special) Case No.5 of 2023, arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2018 registered under section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered and after the investigation the charge sheet has been filed wherein it has been stated that during the check period, Rs.25,25,847/-, whereas the total expenditure is said to be Rs.79,97,685.06 which shows that the difference between the income and the expenditure of Rs.54,71,838.06 and proportionate percentage is about 216.64% and thus, the petitioner has spent about 216.64% more than his income. He submits that this is without any basis in view of the fact that the petitioner herein has taken a loan amount of Rs.38,23,664/- and that has been further top-up by way of further taking a sum of Rs.10 lacs and in view of that the allegation against the petitioner is not correct and as such, the petitioner has filed the discharge petition and the learned court has dismissed the discharge petition. He submits that the Income Tax Return of the wife of the petitioner is also annexed and that has also not been considered and, on this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharged from the liability of the case. 4 . On the other hand, Mrs. Sharmin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ACB opposed the prayer and submits that the FIR against the petitioner has been lodged after proper inquiry and report of informant wherein upon the order dated 11.12.2017 of the Additional Director General of Police, ACB an investigation was initiated and it was alleged that the petitioner being Clerk of Primary Teachers’ Education College, Bundu from January, 2010 to January, 2017 has received total salary of Rs.28,29,614/- and out of which, Rs.3,03,757/- was deducted from salary and net received payment was Rs.25,25,847/- . She further submits that the wife of the petitioner is a home-maker and petitioner has purchased a land of ten decimals worth Rs.8,79,000/- in the name of his wife Mrs Pratima Devi and further it has been found that a house has been constructed in 3000 sq.ft. where there are several shops as well as the living area and that amounts to an investment of Rs.38,25,000/- and the construction was found on the upper floor has begun in the year 2018 which is after the check period and the check period is said to be January, 2010 to January, 2017. 5 . She further submits that the materials are there and in view of that the learned court has rightly rejected the discharge petition. She further elaborates her argument by submitting that this Court is not required to roam into to come to a conclusion whether such crime has been made out or not and that can be a subject matter of the trial and in that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the impugned order. She submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6 . It is an admitted position that on the inquiry report of the informant alleging therein that upon order (PE 16/17) dated 11.12.2017, the Additional Director General of Police, ACB, an investigation was initiated and it was alleged that the petitioner being Clerk of Primary Teachers’ Education College, Bundu from January, 2010 to January, 2017 received total salary of Rs.28,29,614/- and out of which Rs.3,03,757/- was deducted from the salary and his net payment was Rs.25,25,847/-. The further allegation is there that the plinth area constructed amounts to Rs.38,25,000/-. The wife of the petitioner is said to be a home-maker and Income Tax Return is filed to the tune of Rs.11,19,016/- for a period from 2014 to 2018. 7 . In view of above, in the case in hand, the materials clearly suggest that the income and the expenditure are not proportionate to the income and the petitioner is said to be a Clerk in a Primary Teachers’ Education College, Bundu and all these facts has come in the case-diary and pursuant to that, the charge sheet has been submitted and that is also disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the A.C.B. 8 . Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and the documents placed therein before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence is said to be necessitated an application of mind by the court but framing of the charge is the major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face the trial. There are different category of cases where the court may not proceed in the trial and may discharge the accused or pass such orders as may be necessary keeping in view of the facts of the given case. In a case whereupon considering the record of the case and the documents submitted before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of Cr.P.C or Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 or any other law for the time being in force and there is bar and their exist no ground to proceed against the accused, the court may discharge the accused. 9 . Another well settled law is that the revisional jurisdiction of the high Court is very limited and one cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice explicit but the court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case. It may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, unless the case subsequently falls within the category of discharge. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceeding under the Cr.P.C or Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 normally not required by the revisional court. 10 . It is well known that revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter-court remedy is available in such cases. No doubt, it may subject to jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 11 . 10 . It is well known that revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter-court remedy is available in such cases. No doubt, it may subject to jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 11 . Normally , a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same could not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases. 12 . The Jurisdiction of the Court under the relevant Section(s) of the Cr.P.C or of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, illegality or propriety of an order passed by the learned trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. 13 . The jurisdiction of revisional court is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of the order passed by a Court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction in revision, but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is culpable error in compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneously or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. 14 . In view of the facts of the present case as discussed hereinabove and looking to the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court has not made any error in view of the materials on record to reject the said discharge petition filed by the petitioner who is said to be a Clerk of a Primary Teachers’ Education College, Bundu and he is having an amount of Rs.54,71,838.06 excess of his total income. 15 . In light of above reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is material on record and the charge can be framed against the petitioner. 16 . As such, this criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed. 17 . Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.