Short Note : 1. This revision is at the instance of the State seeking to challenge the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the non-applicant has been discharged by the trial Court by observing that there was no material on record sufficient enough to frame a charge for the offence punishable under section 409 read with section 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Held : On perusal of the order made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. I find that the reasons given by him for discharging the present non-applicant are that he was not expected to verify the actual cash balance and, therefore, there was no scope for holding him liable under section 109 or 120-B of the Indian Penal Code also. Here the, learned Magistrate fell into error. Irrespective of the fact that the Deputy Clerk of Court was not expected to verify the actual cash balance, he was undisputedly expected to examine the correctness of the accounts while checking the same and making an endorsement to that effect. While examining the accounts, one has to see whether the opening balance has been correctly brought forward and the closing balance drawn by the District Nazir was also correct and accordingly carried over. The interpolations were apparent on the face of the account book itself and despite that the Deputy Clerk of Court did not take note of the same. It would be significant to mention that such interpolations in the figures of opening and, closing balance were repeatedly made and appear to be in a planned manner. Under these circumstances the prosecution claimed that the acts and omissions on the part of the Deputy Clerk of Court i.e., the non-applicant in this case were deliberate and wilful for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence by the District Nazir. 2. The learned Magistrate has observed in para 5 of his order that from all these circumstances, negligence alone on the part of the Deputy Clerk of Court could be inferred. In my opinion, in the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, the learned Magistrate was wrong in prejudicing the entire matter at the initial stage. Had there been no interpolations etc. In my opinion, in the background of the facts and circumstances stated above, the learned Magistrate was wrong in prejudicing the entire matter at the initial stage. Had there been no interpolations etc. in the account and the case would have been of pure and simple embezzlement of the cash in hand by the District Nazir, there would have been no scope for implicating the Deputy Clerk of Court merely on the ground that he was required to check the accounts daily. But the facts and circumstances in the present case are not merely so. There is sufficient material to frame a charge against the present non-applicant also for the offence alleged by the prosecution. It is true that possibility of there being a case of mere negligence alone may not be totally ruled out and eventually it might be found that the acts and omissions on the part of the present non, applicant were either accidental or due to negligent checking without any element of dishonesty or intention to facilitate the commission of the offence by the District Nazir, but the same will not be a justification for discharging the non-applicant at the outset. Revision allowed.