JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11.12.2006, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002, refusing to discharge the petitioner of the charges under section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. of this case which relates to murder of Ram Charan Bedia and the petitioner was also the owner of the car bearing registration no. BR14C 3377. After due investigation, police submitted charge sheet only against the co-accused –Shanker Bedia. The learned trial court vide order dated 16.07.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002 has arrayed this petitioner as an accused by exercising the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. The order by which the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case has not been challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the case and filed a petition with a prayer to discharge him. The learned trial court considering the fact that the informant in his deposition before the court has suspected that inter alia the petitioner along with the co-accused persons has killed the said Ram Charan Bedia and concealed his dead body in bushy forest as well as considering the testimony of the witnesses who have stated that in the car of the petitioner, certain persons including the co-accused persons were going on towards Hundru and the said car was seen going back from Hundru and other materials in the record, came to a conclusion that there is sufficient material in the record to frame charge for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and rejected the petition for discharge.

4. Mr. Jai Prakash the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed against the materials available in the record and the trial court has failed to discharge the duty cast upon it while considering the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be discharged in the Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2012.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned order and submitted that there is sufficient material in the record to frame charge in the case and as the order passed under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by arraying the petitioner as an accused in this case has not been challenged and attained finality. It is then submitted that there is no merit in this criminal revision hence this criminal revision be dismissed.

6. It is a settled principle of law that there is a material difference between an accused since inception of an accused who is added as such under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An accused since inception is not necessarily heard before he is added as an accused. However, a person who is added as an accused under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessarily heard before being so added. The person who is added as an accused under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be discharged because the standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against an accused as the standard of proof employed in summoning a person exercising power under section 319 CrPC the court concerned is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case whereas the court at the stage of framing of the charge has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of an offence by the accused. Moreover a person is added a