THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.1097 of 2009 Dated:15th October, 2009. Between: 1. Palanki Nageswara Reddy & Ors. ….Petitioner and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1097 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 06.04.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2009 in C.C.No.671 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. 2. The petitioners are A2, A4, A6 and A7 in C.C.No.671 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, Krishna District. A1 is the father of A2 and A7, and father-in-law of A4 and A6. A report came to be presented by LW.1-Tummalapalli Krishna Rao against the accused alleging that they are doing paddy business and in the course of their business, they purchased paddy in Dalva Session of the year 2007 from various ryots and subsequently failed to pay the money and absconded from the village. Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused persons, 7 in number. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as C.C.No.671 of 2008. Thereupon, the petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as A2, A4, A6 and A7, filed Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2009 seeking their discharge. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that there is prima facie material to frame charges against the accused and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by order dated 06.04.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is A1 who is concerned with the paddy business and his family members have no say in the matter. A further submission has been made that the son, son-in-law and daughter and daughter-in-law, who have been figured as A2, A4, A6 and A7 respectively, are in no way concerned with the business of A1 and therefore, they are entitled to be discharged from the case. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submits that the paddy business is being carried on by all the accused together and the witnesses examined during the course of investigation speak of the participation of the accused in the business at some stage or other and therefore, the application by them seeking their discharge has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court, and the order passed by the trial is not liable to be interfered with in this revision. 6. I have gone through the material brought on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State placed on record the C.D. file, which contains the statements of the witnesses. The witnesses examined by the police during the course of investigation stated the participation of the petitioners in the paddy business carried on by A1 at one stage or the other. 7. The scope and ambit of consideration by the trial Court at the stage of framing charges must necessarily be limited to decide whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge. If the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged, at that stage microscopic examination or probative value of the material brought on record is not required to be considered. The court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material brought on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At the stage of framing charge, even strong suspicion founded on material, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 8. The trial Court has rightly considered the material brought on record and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the material brought on record makes out a prima facie case against them. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 15th October, 2009. cs