A JESUDOSS INBARAJ Vs. IMAYAVARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties.

(2.) THE above revision is directed against the order dated 4. 8. 1995 in Crl. M. P. No. 2388 of 1995 in C. C. No. 201 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chengai M. G. R. District, allowing the petition filed under Section 239, Cr. P. C. and discharging the first respondent in the above criminal case, namely C. C. No. 201 of 1995.

(3.) AS there is no strong objection by the first respondent with regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Advocate, I have no option except to decide the matter in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State of maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 See (Crl.) 820, wherein it is held as follows:- "';' ; if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. "