JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 06.08.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in connection with Pakur (T) P.S. Case No. 186 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 848 of 2017, whereby, the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered for the offence under Sections 341 , 384, 386 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT , however, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 341 , 504 and 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 30 of the ARMS ACT . He submits that there is no evidence of pointing out of the gun or make fire therefrom by the accused petitioner upon the son of the informant namely Abhishek Chandra Pandey or any one as alleged by the informant in the FIR, rather the I.O. has found in the entire CCTV footage that the barrel of gun was up side. He further submits that in absence of any reason of contravention of using of the armed license, cognizance has been taken under Section 30 of the ARMS ACT , in view of that the cognizance order itself is bad in law, in light of that the discharge petition has been filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the learned court, which is not in accordance with law. He submits that the firing aspect has not been supported in view of the statement made in para-58 of the case diary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547 . 5. He submits that the firing aspect has not been supported in view of the statement made in para-58 of the case diary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Versus State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in (2019) 16 SCC 547 . 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that for framing of charge, what are the documents in the investigation and the evidence available to the court is required to be considered by the learned court, however, the learned court without appreciating all these aspects of the matter, has rejected the discharge petition, in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharged. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the learned court has considered the parameters of discharge and thereafter passed the order, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the informant-O.P. No. 2 submits that in para-10 onwards, the witnesses have supported the case that the petitioner herein has fired upon the son of the informant, however, by the firearm, son was not caused any hurt. He submits that the learned court has considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Versus Mohanlal Soni , reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 and thereafter has passed the order. He further submits that the petitioner has also committed the same crime earlier, which has come in para-39 of the case diary. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as such, the petition of the petitioner is fit to be dismissed. 8. In the FIR, allegations are made by the informant namely Asimendra Chandra Pandey stating therein that on 27.12.2017 in the afternoon, when the informant asked the accused to remove his car which he had parked in front of his gate as it was blocking the passage, the petitioner went berserk. It has been alleged that the accused started hurling abuses to him and threatened to kill him. The petitioner did not stop at that point and even brought a gun from his house and allegedly fired at the son of the informant namely Avishek Chandra Pandey. It has been alleged that the accused started hurling abuses to him and threatened to kill him. The petitioner did not stop at that point and even brought a gun from his house and allegedly fired at the son of the informant namely Avishek Chandra Pandey. The CCTV camera footage was examined by the I.O., wherein para-58, the clear discussions have been made that on a car, the person was sitting along with arms and what has been recorded in the CCTV footage, that has also discussed in para-58 of the case diary. 9. In course of the arguments, it has not been denied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the witnesses examined have not supported the case of the prosecution and para-10 onwards of the case diary, the witnesses, who were examined, have supported the case of the prosecution. In para-13, it has also come that earlier also the petitioner has fired upon one of the person, however, it has been replied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has already acquitted in that case. 10. In view of the above and on the above backgrounds, only consideration in the present revision petition is as to whether the case of discharge is made out or not. 11. In the case relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-23 has held that material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial and in view of that observation and in light of materials found in the investigation, particularly in para-58 of the case diary, wherein the description of the CCTV footage has been discussed, it cannot be said that it will not be translated into the evidence and further a strong suspicion is there. 12. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial court forms in terms of Sections 228 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. which is subject to final culmination of the proceedings. The legislature in its wisdom has used the expression ‘there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence’. 12. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial court forms in terms of Sections 228 and 239 of the Cr.P.C. which is subject to final culmination of the proceedings. The legislature in its wisdom has used the expression ‘there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence’. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied, the Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste. The meaning of the word "presume" means "to believe or accept upon probable evidence"; "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming". In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross- examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment. 13. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of them bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. Revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 14. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 14. Coming to the facts of the present case what has been discussed hereinabove, the materials come in para-10 onwards of the case diary and particularly in para-58 of the case diary, on which, heavy reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the materials are there and strong suspicion are also there. The court finds that there is no patent error or any perversity or arbitrariness committed by the learned court in passing the impugned order on a petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, discussions, reasons and analysis, the court finds there is not illegality in the impugned order, as such, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. 16. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated. 17. It is made clear that the learned court will proceed further in accordance with law by way of framing the charge and this order will not prejudice the case of either of the parties, as it has only been decided on the parameters of discharge.