Order: In this petition the petitioner seeks a revision of the order of the Additional District Magistrate directing a further enquiry. The petitioner was charged under sections 465 and 201, Indian Penal Code, before the Joint Magistrate, Rajahmundry. The case against him was that he issued several bills in the names of fictitious persons to cover up the sales and rendered himself liable under section 465 Indian Penal Code. It was also said that, to further cover up the fictitious bills, he attempted to destroy the bills by setting fire to them. The Joint Magistrate, while finding on the evidence on record, that the accused did issue receipts in the names of persons who did not ex1st and that he later attempted to burn the original bills, came to the conclusion that the offences committed by the accused did not amount to one under section 465 or under section 201, Indian Penal Code. According to the Magistrate, the bills issued by the petitioner did not amount to false documents within the meaning of section 464, Indian Penal code. As the second charge was that he tried to destroy the evidence of the offence of forgery, an offence punishable under section 201, Indian Penal Code, and as no offence of forgery was committed, the second charge also was unsustainable. In this view of the matter he discharged the accused. On revision by the State, the Additional District Magistrate set aside that order and ordered further enquiry. The reasons given by him as regards the first charge are unintelligible. The learned District Magistrate also thought that the offence of causing disappearance of evidence is a separate and d1stinct offence and requires investigation, as the petitioner sought to destroy evidence of the offence of forgery. It is against this order that the present revision petition is filed. In this petition, the view of the Additional District Magistrate regarding both the charges is canvassed. The first question for consideration is, whether an offence under section 465 has been committed. It is true that the evidence established that bills were issued by the petitioner in the names of fictitious persons. But the question is, do they amount to false documents within the meaning of section 464,. Indian Penal Code? The first question for consideration is, whether an offence under section 465 has been committed. It is true that the evidence established that bills were issued by the petitioner in the names of fictitious persons. But the question is, do they amount to false documents within the meaning of section 464,. Indian Penal Code? An offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code, is committed only if a person makes a false document for purposes mentioned in section 463, Indian Penal Code. “A person is said to make a false document: First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Second-Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently by cancellation pr otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly-Who, dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or nature of the alteration.” Clauses(2) and (3) are not relevant for the purpose of this enquiry. Under section 464, Indian Penal Code, what is essential is that the accused person must make a document with the intention of making it believed that it was signed by or by the authority of someone else, while he knows that it was not so made or authorised by that person. In this case, the accused did not make the bills purporting to be made by or authorised by some person. The intention in issuing the bills may be fraudulent and he may be punishable for some other offence. In this case, the accused did not make the bills purporting to be made by or authorised by some person. The intention in issuing the bills may be fraudulent and he may be punishable for some other offence. But to bring it within the four corners of this section, the false document must be created with a view to make it appear that it was made by some other person whom the accused knows, did not make it — see Queen-Empress v. Kunju Nayar1. It follows that no offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code, has been committed. Coming now to the offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code, as the charge against him is that he caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence of forgery, and as the first charge fails, the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code, are lacking. It follows that the petitioner was rightly discharged by the Joint Magistrate and the Additional District Magis- trate ought not to have set aside that order. Before concluding, I want to mention about something which requires investigation. In the order of the Joint Magistrate, it is stated: “The Additional Public Prosecutor himself admitted in Court that if no charge under section 465 lies, then this also automatically fails as the accused is said to have caused the disappearance of evidence for the main charge under section 465, Indian Penal Code.” But in the order of the District Magistrate, it is remarked: “It is also said that the Additional Public Prosecutor admitted such a position while it is denied by the Additional Public Prosecutor, in this Court”. It is true that the concession of the Additional Public Prosecutor is absolutely immaterial on a question of law, but, whether he made such a concession or not, is material in this case, while the Joint Magistrate says that such a concession was made, the District Magistrate denies Additional Public Prosecutor having made such a statement. The District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, will enquire into this matter and submit a report within a month. D.L.N. ----- Revision allowed.