Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.7.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi inCriminal Revision No. 5/99 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 9.8.99 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi by which the learned Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused petitioner and other accused respondents for offence under Sections 420, 167, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC.
2. In this case, Mool Singh complainant was not made a party by the accused petitioner but by order of this Court dated 23.3.2001, notice was issued to the complainant and on his behalf his counsel has given appearance.
3. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows:
(i) Mool Singh complainant filed a complaint on 8.7.92 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi against the present accused petitioner and some other accused persons stating that the accused petitioner Bheru Lal along with other accused persons made a conspiracy to swallow up the complainant's land and purchased stamp paper in the name of Mool Singh (Complainant) and land bearing Khasra No. 102 Rakba 239 bighas was sold out on 24.8.81 through registered sale-deed to accused petitioner Bheru Lal and Ranu Lal by affixing his forged thumb impression on the sale-deeds and both the sale-deeds were registered later on in the office of Sub-registrar. Similarly on 23,2.85, two separate sale-deeds were executed in favour of accused petitioner Bheru Lal and Ranu Lal after putting forged thumb impression of the complainant.
4. The said complaint was sent by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Phalodi and the same was received there on 11.7.92 and FIR was registered.
5. After investigation the police submitted challan against the present accused petitioner and some other accused persons for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.
6. That the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate hearing the arguments on charge arid through impugned order dated 9.8.99 discharged the accused persons of all the charges for which challan was filed against that including that of the accused petitioner.
7. Aggrieved against the order dated 9.8.99, a revision petition was filed by the State and that revision was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge through his order dated 20.7.2000 and the order of discharge dated 9,8.99 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that at the time of framing of charges, prima facie case was to be seen and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has transgressed his jurisdiction by mischarging the accused petitioner and other accused persons simply on the ground of age of the complainant.
8. Aggrieved from that order dated 20.7.2000, this revision petition has been filed by one of the accused Bheru Lal.
9. In this revision petition, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 9.8.99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is correct and the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perverse and should be set aside and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 9.8.99 should be restored.
10. I have heard both.
11. It may be stated here that the challan was filed by the police and trial of warrant case instituted on police report was to be conducted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and for that procedure is provided in Section 238 Cr.P.C. and onwards. When an accused can be discharged in warrant trial instituted on police report, for that Section 239 Cr.P.C. may be referred to.
12. Section 239 Cr.P.C. authorises a Magistrate to discharge the accused if he considers the charge against him to be groundless. Under Section 240 before the charge is framed, Magistrate must entertain the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. In the context, the word 'ground' must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary sense 'meaning basis' 'foundation' or 'valid' reason. If the documents, examination of accused and the arguments of the parties referred to in Sections 239 and 240 furnish reasonable basis or foundation for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the Magistrate shall frame a charge against the accused. If, on the other hand, they furnish no reasonable basis or foundation for the charge against the accused, he should discharge him. The word 'groundless' would certainly mean the absence of reasonable ground to expect a conviction. It may be that at the trial the materials on the basis of which a charge has been framed may not stand the test of cross examination or is rendered unacceptable, but these considerations become available only at the conclusion of the trial and do not enter into consideration at the stage when the Magistrate has to make up his mind as to whether or not he should frame a charge. The only question, therefore, is whether the materials considered by the Magistrate could lead to the view that the charge against the accused is proper. That apart the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. J. Jayalalitha (1) has held that state of framing of charge is not the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials nor for shifting the materials presented by the prosecution. The exercise at this stage should be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused are 'groundless' or whether 'there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences'. Presumption therein is always rebuttable by the accused for which there must be opportunity of participation in the trial.
13. Keeping the above principles in mind, the order dated 9.8.99 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have been sustained and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set aside that order and allowed the revision. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is within the frame work of law and he has considered that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case has to be seen and from that point of view, he has rightly come to the conclusion that prima facie case exists against the accused petitioner and other accused persons.
14. In this case from the material available on record and statements recorded by the police, it does not appear that the charge against the accused petitioner and other accused is groundless. When the charge is not groundless, the same should have been framed against the accused petitioner and other accused persons. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi cannot be sustained and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the same.
15. Hence, the present revision petition has no force and same is accordingly dismissed after confirming the judgment dated 20.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi in Criminal Revision No. 5/99.