C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Rule, heard forthwith with consent of parties.

2. This is a Criminal Revision Application by the original accused No.2. The original accused No.2 has preferred this revision because of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has refused to discharge him in Sessions Case No. 25/2006.

3. A few facts may be stated thus :

The accused No. 2 i.e. the present petitioner is facing sessions trial before the Sessions Judge, Panaji. It is alleged that the present petitioner hatched a conspiracy alongwith accused No. 1 to do away with one Praveen Grover. Praveen Grover had business relations with the present petitioner as well as accused No. 1/Sunil Thukral. The disputes arose between them and accordingly a conspiracy was hatched and the deceased was killed actually by accused No. 3/Ashpak Bengre. After the investigation was over, charge sheet came to be filed against the three accused i.e. the present petitioner, Sunil Thukral and Ashpak Bengre.

4. When the Court proceeded to frame charge against the accused, the learned counsel for the accused requested to hear him before framing of the charge. The counsel addressed the Court with a sole objective that the Court should discharge the accused. The Sessions Judge passed an order on 30th November, 2007 refusing to discharge the accused and directed that charge be framed. Against this order, Criminal Revision Application was preferred before this Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 1/2008. The said revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge was directed to consider the objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused. The learned Sessions Judge once again passed an order on 8.4.2008 refusing to discharge the accused. The accused once again came before this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 33/2008. It was urged by the accused that the accused were not heard at all and therefore, the order passed by the Sessions Judge was set aside and the matter was once again remitted back to the Sessions Judge to give an opportunity to the counsel to urge the grounds for discharge. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge heard the counsel for the accused/petitioner and the State and rejected the prayer for discharge and proceeded to frame the charge. Being aggrieved by that, this revision has been preferred.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case, the accused No. 2 ought to have been discharged. According to him, there is not even an iota of evidence against him and therefore, he should not be required to undergo the rigor of a sessions trial. He submitted that what is available against the accused is merely a suspicion. He also submitted that suspicion is therefore, no evidence at all. As regards Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling Test, he contended that such reports have corroborative value and corroborative piece of evidence cannot be looked into unless some substantive evidence is available. Even if evidence that is available on record is taken on its face value that could not be treated as sufficient to hold that there was sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed the crime.

7. It is obvious from the words of Section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Court should be able to form an opinion upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents, that there exists a ground for presuming that the accused has committed the crime.

8. Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior counsel had relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in submitting that the Court is not required to weigh the evidence and prima facie has to find out whether there is evidence. The first decision is Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749. He had invited my attention to paragraph 29 which reads as follows