Judgment :- 1. This is a petition to revise an order passed by the District Judge of Tellicherry in an appeal against an order made by the District Munsiff of Taliparamba on an application under S.195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For Rs. 2115 alleged to be due to him under a pronote, Ext. A-6 the revision petitioner brought a suit O.S. 55/1950 of the Munsiff's Court of Taliparamba against the respondents. They denied the genuineness of the pronote but the suit was decreed in the first instance. On appeal by the respondents the trial court's decree was set aside and the suit remanded for trial de novo. After the remand the respondents got the pro-note examined by certain technical experts and obtained a report that it was not genuine and thereafter the petitioner defaulted to appear and prosecute the suit and so it was dismissed for default. Then the respondents applied under S.195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the District Munsiff for prosecuting the petitioner for offences under S.191, 192, 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The District Munsiff dismissed this application but on appeal by the respondents the District Judge of Tellicherry reversed the District Munsiff 's order and finding that there was a reasonable probability of the proposed prosecution ending in conviction directed the District Munsiff to record a finding in accordance with his (District Judge's) judgment and make a complaint before a competent Magistrate against the petitioner for offences under S.193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The revision petition is against this order of the District Judge. 2. Two grounds were urged before me against the District Judge's order. One was that there was no finding by the District Judge that there was a prima facie case and the other was that there was no evidence on which a finding in this respect could be entered. The first ground appears to me to be unsustainable, but the revision petitioner has to succeed on the second ground. 3. I am inclined to think that when the District Judge says in Para.3 of his order "There is a reasonable and good foundation for the prosecution and there is a reasonable probability of the prosecution ending in conviction," he really means that a prima facie case has been made out by the respondents. 4. 3. I am inclined to think that when the District Judge says in Para.3 of his order "There is a reasonable and good foundation for the prosecution and there is a reasonable probability of the prosecution ending in conviction," he really means that a prima facie case has been made out by the respondents. 4. Coming to the second ground urged before me, it has to be observed that all that the learned judge has relied upon in support of his finding is only the reports of the technical experts. No doubt, he says in his order that he is relying upon the evidence of the experts. But the experts have not given any evidence either in the suit or in the proceedings on the application under S.195 and 476. They have not even filed an affidavit in any of these proceedings. Therefore, there is no legal evidence at all as to whether the pronote in question was a forgery or not. In Asiruddin v. Emperor (A.I.R.1919 Patna 143) (2) it has been held that: "Where there is no evidence on the record to show that an accused person is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, an order for his prosecution under S.476, is bad in law and must be set aside." It has been contended before me that, although there might be no legal evidence to prove that the document in question was a forgery, if there was material before the lower court to support the conclusion that the document was a forgery - material in the sense that there was a report by a handwriting expert - that will be enough to support an order under S.476. This question itself has come up for decision in the Allahabad High Court in Peary Lal v. Kider Nath (A.I.R.1923 Allahabad 601) and it has been held in that case: "The report of the Government Expert, who never came into the witness box and whose report is not supported even by an affidavit is inadmissible in evidence and should not form the basis of the order directing the prosecution on a charge of forgery. A sanction based on a piece of evidence that can in no circumstances be called legal evidence and especially when there is positive legal evidence against it is illegal. A sanction based on a piece of evidence that can in no circumstances be called legal evidence and especially when there is positive legal evidence against it is illegal. The power of sanction should be used with great caution." If I may say so with respect I am in complete agreement with the above observations. 5. On the facts also I am not convinced of the expediency of a prosecution in this case. Admittedly about Rs. 2000 was due to the petitioner from the respondents He might have forged the plaint pronote probably to defeat the relief which the respondents were claiming under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. A forgery is always reprehensible, but the fact I have just alluded to can be taken into account in considering the question whether a prosecution is expedient or not. No finding has been entered in the suit itself as to whether the pronote in question was a forgery or not. And although the pronote has been caused to be examined by experts and their reports obtained, no attempt has been made to obtain the evidence of those experts either in the suit or in the proceedings on the application. 6. For these reasons, I allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of the District Judge and restore the District Munsiff's order rejecting the application under S.195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Parties will bear their costs throughout. Allowed.