1. This Criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 read with Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is preferred challenging the legality of the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in ST No.09/2024 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sanawad to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar District West Nimar, M.P. whereby the charges under Section 420 read with Section 120-B and 409 read with Section 120-B of IPC, have been framed against the revision petitioner.

2. The charges have been framed against the revision petitioner based on the material collected during the investigation of Crime No.182/2024 registered at police Station Sanawad, District Khargone in which a crop of approximately Rs.4.60/- crores belonging to 152 farmers has been misappropriated when the same was entrusted to the Sairam Traders engaged as a licensee of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad, District Khargone in conspiracy with revision petitioner operating through Radhika Traders in the same Mandi i.e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad, District Khargone alongwith Sunil Malakar operating through Rukmani Devi Trading Company situated at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad, District Khargone.

3. This criminal revision is preferred on the ground that no seizure has been effected from the revision petitioner, his name was not mentioned in the FIR, the complainant dated 09.07.2024 is not supported by any evidence, he has no relation with the Sairam Traders. Whatever the agriculture produce Gram was purchased by the revision petitioner that has been seized in the godown by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sanawad, District Khargone.

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

6. Perused the record.

7. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is appropriate to refer to the scope of exercise of power under section 227 of the Cr.P.C or presently section 250 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court in P.Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and another - (2010) 2 SCC 398, made an in-depth consideration regarding the scope of power under section 227 Cr.P.C and held thus:

          "10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

          "227. Discharge. -- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."

          If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.

          11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him."

8. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation -(2010) 9 SCC 368,(2010) 9 SCC 368, the Apex Court has laid down certain guiding principles for discharge as under:

          "21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:

          (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

          (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

          (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

          (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

          (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

          (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.

          (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal."

9. Now, come to the facts of this case, the statement of Shubham Malakar working with Sairam Traders, Sanawad has disclosed that present revision petitioner was instrumental in the purchase of crop for Sairam Traders and money transactions have been collected. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner are the matter of defence. The material collected is sufficient to raise the "grave suspicion" regarding which the charges have been framed. Accordingly, this revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby rejected.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court for necessary information.