The scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 399 of the CrPC is limited to examining the correctness, legality, and propriety of the findings, sentence, or order of the lower court, and the revisional court should not substitute its own conclusion or elaborate consideration of the evidence on record.

( 1 ) THE present application under sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure is directed against an order dated 21. 2. 1989 passed by the learned sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands at Port Blair under sections 399 and 401 of the Cr. PC in Criminal Revision Case No. 13 of 1988 setting aside the order No. 20 dated 10. 8. 1988 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Port blair discharging accused/petitioner in G. R. Case Nos. 491/ 259 of 1988.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances leading to the instant application are as follows: the Assistant Secretary (Vigilance) of the Andaman and Nicobar administration sent a confidential letter to the I. G. of Police, A and N Islands, port Blair alleging malpractices adopted by the petitioner in the matter of procuring and disposal of a scooter. The background of such allegation was that against an allotment order BCp060084 dated 20. 3. 79 one Sri Suresh B. Bijalani of Block No. 42/9, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was allotted with one 'chetak' Scooter out of foreign exchange quota and the said scooter was duly supplied to Mr. Bijalani by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. , New Delhi. The sale of the scooter within a period of two years of its purchase was not permissible. The scooter got its registration No. AN 3012 at Port Blair on 26. 7. 81. On scrutiny it was found that various column of Form 'a' for payment of road tax and Form 'b' for registration of the vehicle were filled in by the accused/petitioner, while in Form 'a' the petitioner affixed his own signature on behalf of Mr. Bijalani in Form 'b', the petitioner, it was alleged, signed posing himself to be Mr. Bijalani. The signature in Form 'a' did not tally with the signature of Mr. Bijalani appearing in Form 'b'. The Insurance Policy of the said scooter shows the name of one Mr. Suresh was not found at the address given or in the Government Service at Port Blair. It was alleged that the present petitioner got it done. The scooter was subsequently sold to one Mr. R. V. Alagar Swamy, Contractor of 46, M. G. Market, Port Blair on 15. 1. 82 within one year of the original purchase from the dealer for Rs. 16,500/ -. It was alleged that there was nexus between the petitioner and the said Alagar swamy. It was further alleged that the petitioner forged the signature of sri Bijalani for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. On receipt of the complaint a case was registered against the petitioner on 27. 4. 85. In course of the investigation, the Government Examiner of questioned documents gave the view that the handwriting on the aforesaid documents belonged to the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the police on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet under sections 417/ 468/471 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair who transferred the case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (1), port Blair. The learned Trying Magistrate by his order dated 10. 8. 88 discharged the petitioner on the ground that no prima facie case on the materials on record justified framing of the charge under any of the provisions of the IPC. Thereafter on receipt of anonymous complaint against the order of the learned Magistrate, the impugned proceeding in revision under section 399 read with section 401 of the Cr. PC was started by the learned Sessions judge (Revision Case No. 13/88 ). The learned Sessions Judge by the order impugned expressed the view that there was a prima facie case justifying framing of the charge and on such a finding set aside the order dated 10. 8. 1988 and restore the case to its original and number and transferred the case to the Court of CJM, Port Blair for trial according to law. On being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has come up before this court in revision. It is contended that through the investigation no prima facie case against the accused/petitioner under any of the sections contained in the chargesheet i. e. , s