mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3987 OF 2009 Chandrakant Narayan Pawar & Anr. ... Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Prakash Naik for petitioners Ms.S.V. Gajare APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 4th November 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant challenges the order dated 16th July 2009 passed by the 2nd Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Mumbai confirming the order dated 2nd February 2009 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioners for discharge. 3. The petitioners are working as Managers of a warehouse. On the basis of a report of Mr.Aarya that the goods stored by him in the warehouse were stolen, the police commenced the investigation. On investigation the police found the petitioners party to the offence punishable under section 381 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. The police have accordingly filed a charge-sheet against the present petitioners along with two other persons who were in possession of the part of the warehouse. Part of the goods stolen were recovered from the other two co-accused. In their statement, they have alleged involvement of the present petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the discovery made at the instance of the co-accused is not admissible against them and the statements/admissions given by the co-accused are also not admissible against them. Since there is no other material against the petitioners, they ought to have been discharged by the Magistrate. 5. Under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can discharge the accused if he considers that the charges against the accused to be groundless. In order to regard the charge to be groundless, there should be no material available against the accused. The admission of the co-accused, even if proved at the trial is certainly a weak evidence and would need corroboration. However that is a matter to be decided on trial by appreciation of the entire evidence. It cannot be said that there is no prima facie material available against the petitioners at this stage. Evidential value to the discovery and the confessional statement if any made by the co-accused would be determined at the trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the charge against the petitioners is groundless. In the circumstances, I see no error in the view taken by the 2nd Court below. 6. Application is accordingly dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)