At the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case needs to be considered, and if the charge is not groundless, it should be framed against the accused.

SUNIL KUMAR 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 in criminal Revision No. 5/99 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 9-8-1999 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, 467, 468, 471 and 120b, I. P. C.

( 2 ) IN this case. Mool Singh complain ant 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: (1) Mool Singh complainant filed a complaint on 8-7-1992 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 complainants 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 24-8-1981 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 Subregistrar. Similarly on 23-2-1985, two separate saledeeds were executed in favour of accused petitioner Bheru Lal and Ranu Lal after putting folded 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 received there on 11-7-1992 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 120b I. P. C.

( 6 ) THAT the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate hearing the arguments on charge and through, impugned order dated 9-8-1999 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 9-8-1999. 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 9-8-1999 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 discharging 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 9-8-1999 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 9-8-1999 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