Gupta, J.—This is a reference by the Session Judge recommending that the order of commitment of the accused Nazar Mohamed by the 1st Class Magistrate, Mandalgarh, be quashed. The accused was committed to the Sessions for taking his trial for an offence under sec. 466 for having added some language to the entries in the Police Roznamcha Am of the 10th and 12th May, 1947. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Advocate at length and perused the records of the case including tie entries in question in the police diary in respect of which the offence under sec. 466 of the Penal Code is said to have been committed by the accused who was a Sub-Inspector Police in charge of the Police Station, of Parsoli, and have investigated into the report of an offence in which one Khuraj was alleged to have severely beaten his brother Rughnath. The alleged forgery which consists of subsequent additions of certain language in the said entries of the said diary does not appear to have been committed dishonestly and, as stated by the learned Sessions Judge, there is no evidence to prove that the forgery was made with any dishonest intention. To me it appears that the addition of the language complained against has been made with a view to strengthen the conclusion at which the accused had already arrived and which had already been entered in the diary. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever as to the accused having made the addition of the language with a dishonest motive there is no possibility of any conviction even if the facts stated in the order of the commitment be accepted as proved because dishonesty or fraud in the making of a document is an essential ingredient of the offence of forgery. The absence of evidence necessary for an order of commitment is a point of law pure and simple, vide Sheo Bux Ram v. Emperor 2 Criminal Law Journal 534 and Mani Ram, 34 Cr.L.J. 14, and the commitment in question which is based upon evidence from which evidence of a necessary ingredient of dishonesty or fraud is missing deserved to be quashed. 3. I am fortified in this conclusion by a decision of the Lahore High Court in Bhagat Ram v. James, A.I.R. 1945 Lahore 1 (2) in which the following view has been expressed: "............... 3. I am fortified in this conclusion by a decision of the Lahore High Court in Bhagat Ram v. James, A.I.R. 1945 Lahore 1 (2) in which the following view has been expressed: "............... the absence of evidence sufficient to justify an order of the commitment may be regarded as a legal ground, though it may sometimes be difficult to draw a line between a ground of this kind and a mere weekness of evidence. The criterion may possibly be, as my learned brother suggests, that a number of ingredients are generally required to make up an offence and if it appears from the evidence that one of these ingredients is entirely lacking from the prosecution case, this would be a good legal ground for quashing the commitment." 4. I entirely agree with this view, accept the reference made by the learned Session Judge, Bhilwara, and quash the commitment of the accused Nazar Mohammad.