B.R. Arora, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated August 3, 1988, passed by the Sessions Judge Pali, by which the learned Sessions Judge did not frame the charge order Section 436 IPC against the accused and remitted the case under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Pali, to try the accused under Section 336 IPC only.

2. Complainant Ranamal, on May 13, 1981, filed a complaint under Sections 436 and 336 IPC against Himmat Mal, Umed Mal and Chandan Mal in the Court of the learned Miinsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali, It was alleged in the complaint that in the intervening night between 7tji and 8th May, 1981, from the smoke and spark, coming-out from the boiler Chimni (smoke-out-let) of the accuseds factory, which is situated in Ranganiya Bas of Pali City, the hut of the complainant, where the cattle of the complainant used to be tied, got fired. At that time, the complainant was got at his house and his wife Smt. Sukiya Devi and one two-years old girl were in the house. On raising an alarm by Smt. Sukiya Devi, the brother of the complainant, namely, Mangi Lal, and other neighbourers came there and informed the fire-brigade on telephone. The Fire-brigade came and with great difficulties, the fire was extinguished. It was, also, alleged in this complaint that earlier to this, also, on February 21, 1979, in the day, at about 2.00 p.m., the sparks coming from the boiler of the accuseds factory burnt the residential house of the complainant and on that basis, a complaint was filed against the accused under Sections 336 and 436 IPC and the accused are facing trial in that case, which is numbered as Sessions Case No. 214 of 1980. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the accused under Sections 436 and 336 IPC and thereafter committed the accused to stand their trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali on March 9, 1984. The learned Sessions Judge, after the receipt of the case in his Court, summoned the accused and heard them for framing the charges. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that no case for framing the charge under Section 436 IPC is made-out and he, therefore, discharged the accused under Section 436 IPC and remanded the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, under Section 228 Cr.P.C. to try the accused under Section 336 IPC. It is against this order that the present revisionpetition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the accused respondents.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that with respect to the earlier incident dated February 21, 1979, a case under Sections 436 and 336 IPC was registered against the accused and they were charged for these offences by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali. The accused preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 155 of 1980, first for the quashing of the order taking cognizance, which was dismissed by this Court. He further submitted that against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, framing the charges in the same circumstances against the accused under Sections 436 and 336 IPC the accused preferred a revision petition before this Court and that revision petition was dismissed by this Court on May 10, 1988, and the accused are facing trial before the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 436 and 336 IPC The facts and the circumstances of the two cases are the same and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in not framing the charge under Section 436 IPC also, against the accused. He has, further submitted that the ingredients of framing the charge under Section 436 IPC are fully satisfied in the present case and, therefore, the learned lower Court was not justified in discharging the accused-respondents under Section 436 IPC. The learned Counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. He has further submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 436 IPC are not available in the present case and, therefore, the learned lower Court was justified in discharging the accused-respondents under Section 436 IPC. Regarding the rejection of the revision petition filed by the accused against the order framing the charge in the earlier case, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that that revision petition was dismissed not on merits but on the other ground that it was not maintainable. He, therefore, prayed that the rejection of the revision petition is of no help to the complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor, also, supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. I have perused the order passed by the Court below and the record of the case.

5. It is, no doubt, true that the earlier revision petition bearing No. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 197 of 1987 Umed Mal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. was dismissed by this Court on July 27, 1987, on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable against the order of framing the charges and if the petitioner has any grievance then he can file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the Court. But the fact remains that the charges against the accused for committing the same offences, were framed under Sections 436 and 336 IPC and the accused are facing trial under Sections 436 and 336 IPC in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali. The cognizance against the accused in the earlier case was taken under Section 436 IPC against that order, a miscellaneous petition was filed by the accused, which was dismissed by this Court. When the facts of two cases are similar and in one case the charge under Section 436 IPC has been framed by the learned lower Court and in one more case the accused are facing trial for that offence, then in this case, also, the learned Sessions Judge should have framed the charge under Section 436 IPC also against the accused.

6. From a careful reading of all the evidence, produced by the complainant, I am of the view that prima facie a case under Section 436 IPC for framing the charge against the accused has been made-out.

7. At the time of framing the charges, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and a close scrutiny of the case is not required to be made. Even a strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to frame a charge against the accused. From the materials available on record, I am of the opinion that prima fade the materials for framing the charge Under Section 436 IPC exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial.

8. In this view of the matter, the revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated August 23, 1988, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Pali, discharging the accused-respondents under Section 436 IPC is set-aside and he is directed to frame the charge under Section 436 IPC also, against the accused respondents in accordance with law and to proceed with the trial.