Trial court has to apply its mind judicially and decide whether to frame charge or not.

1. N. Sekar, the Proprietor of M/s. Leo Furnaces and N. Sridhar are the petitioners herein . The first and second petitioners are brothers.

2. Superintendent of Police. SPS/CBI/SCB. Madras filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 120-B read with 420, 419, 467 read with 471, IPC. This was taken on file by the Trial court in C.C. No. 6607 of 1995.

3. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking discharge from the above case for the reason that there were no materials to frame the charges for the offences under sections mentioned above.

4. The respondent filed a counter.

5. The Trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, dismissed the petition for discharge and framed the charges under Sections 120-B read with 420,468,471 and 419, IPC. When the charges were read over, petitioners pleaded not guilty. After recording the same, the trial Court posted the matter for trial. At that stage, the petitioners have filed this revision, seeking to set aside the order, dismissing the petition for discharge and framing charges against them.

6. Few facts shall be stated before dealing with the point that arises for consideration for the disposal of the case:-

(a) The first petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s.Leo Furnace situated at Chennai. During the year 1990, he applied for a term loan and bills purchase clean loan for an amount of Rs. 4.6 lakhs and Rs. 35,000 respectively from Bank of India, Mount Road Branch, Chennai. To secure the said loan, the first petitioner executed the loan documents as well as mortgaged an immovable property of Mr.M.V.Ramakrishnan and one Mr.S.D.Madhavan stood as guarantor for the said loan. The loan was applied on 6-1-1990 for the purpose of putting up a unit of melting copper scrap. It is stated in the loan application that they purchased a new Melting Furnace from M/S.Mac Arch Engineering and a new casting chamber from M/s.Pyrotech Equipments and Tools for the prices at Rs. 4,90,000 and Rs. 72,972 respectively. The Manager, Bank of India, granted the loan on 12. 1990 vide sanction latter MO.MT; ADV:MT:1079 stating that the loan amount had been sanctioned and the principal security for the term loan would be hypothecated to the machinery proposed to be purchased apart from the collateral security and personal guarantee. The first petitioner gave two cash receipts to the bank, which ware purported to have been issued by M/s.Mac Arch Engineering, Bangalore for Rs. 1,25,000 and another one purported to have been issued by M/s.Pyrotec Equipments and Tools, Bangalore for Rs. 50,000 to show that he has already made the above payments to the above firms for the purchase of the machineries. The Manager, Bank of India, on the basis of the receipts, released the loan for the remaining amounts i.e. Rs. 3,55,000 and Rs. 54,722 respectively, through the Demand Drafts. The first petitioner collected those demand drafts.

.(b) In the mean time, the first petitioner and his brother, second petitioner opened two Current Accounts in the assumed names as N.Subramaniam and S.Prakash. The fictitious current account a were also opened at Bangalore in the names of M/s.Mac Arch Engineering and M/s.Pyrotec Equipments and Tools. They used the Current Accounts to encash the Demand Drafts, which were issued in the name of those fictitious companies. When these things came to light, the respondent-Police registered a case and investigated into the matter. Bank officials inspected the factory premises and found out that the new machineries have not been purchased from the companies mentioned above and those companies are fictitious companies and the amounts obtained as loan, were not spent for the intended purpose and they committed fraud by using the forged documents and thereby, cheated the bank.

.(c) On the basis of the materials collected by the Investigating Agency, the charge-sheet had been