At the stage of charge consideration, the court should only consider the prima facie case based on materials submitted by the prosecution and should not give weight to the probable defense of the accused or rely on documents not submitted by the prosecution.

M.B.K. Singh, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the legality of the order dated 4.8.06 passed by Shri L.K. Achumi, Special Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland in Case No. R.C. 2/99. The learned Special Judge vide impugned order discharged the present respondents 1 to 4 under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 at the stage of charge consideration in respect of the above said case, wherein there are allegations of the commission of offences punishable under Sections120B/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13 read with Section 13 of the PC Act, 1988 as against the present respondents 1 to 4 and others.

2. I have heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Mr. Kumar Parimal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4.

3. This is the third time that the question of legality of discharging the above said respondents in respect of the above said case at the stage of charge consideration is brought before this Court by the prosecution/revisionist,

4. Basing on findings made in the course of investigation of the case, the prosecution's case in brief, in so far as against as the respondents 1 to 4 are concerned, is as follows:

That the above said four respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy with other accused in the case and in pursuance thereof, work of repairing 40 MT Cole Crane having registration No. ASN 8376 of NEEPCO was awarded to M/s Oswal Associates under the work order being No. DHEP/U & WD/T-6(III)/98-99/364-368, dated 2.6.98 ignoring the interest of the corporation and falsely representing about the need for repairing the crane. The four respondents facilitated in issuing the work order even though there was not any technical analysis to assess the actual areas in respect of which repairing was required and also regarding the requirement of new spares to be used. They also facilitated the accused Manoj Kumar Dugar (M/s Oswal Associates) to receive advance payment of Rs. 14 lakhs against contract value of Rs. 18,53,590/- by raising false bills. False bank guarantee and false sale tax registration number were allowed to be furnished on behalf of the firm. Material inspection report and load testing report were not genuine documents and they were prepared to facilitate the contractor to avoid penal liabilities and also to show falsely that the contractor had supplied new spares. Though the crane was repaired, in fact, there was no replacement of any parts of the crane.

5. 50 documents are mentioned in the list of documents and more than 30 witnesses are cited as witnesses sought to be produced and examined during the trial in support of the case as against the accused persons including the said respondents 1 to 4.

6. At the time of consideration of the question of framing charges, in respect of the alleged offences, what the Court has to see is whether the materials gathered during the investigation and brought on record would reasonably connect the accused persons with the alleged offences or not. No more is required to be enquired into.

7. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, [1989] 1 SCR 560, while examining the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, the Supreme Court held at paragraph 14 as thus:

...Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that the Judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The "ground" in the context is not a ground for conviction but the ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing charge. The Court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in shifting and weighing the material nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would