JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated November 29, 1990, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumargarh, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 408, 420, 467, 471, 474, 477A read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code. 2. Som Prakash Moga, Branch Manager, the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Tibi, filed a written complaint at the Police Station, Tibi, on January 1,1988, alleging therein that Surjeet Singh was working as the Manager of the cooperative Society Since November 17, 1986 to August 4, 1988, and Krishna Kumar was working as the salesman since August 27, 1986 to Many 6, 1987 The Audit of the Cooperative Society for the period from July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987 was done by Shri Yadav Chand Ojha, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Hanumangarh, and during the audit, it was found that the accused Surjeet Singh and Krishna Kumar, who were working as the Manager and the Salesman respectively, had made an embezziement of an amount of Rs. 12,970 and Rs. 30, 500/- on May 5, 1987. The copy of the audit report was, also, enclosed alongwith the complaint and it was prayed that a case under Sections 409 and 420 Indian Penal Code may be registered against the accused petitioner Surjeet Singh and Krishna Kumar. On the basis of this information, a First Information Report was registered at the Police Station, Tibi, on January 1, 1988, against accused Sureet Singh and Krishna Kumar for offences under Sections 408 and 420 Indian Penal Code. The Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against both the accused under Sections 408, 420, 467, 471, 472, 477 read with Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record against the accused petitioner, on the basis of which the charges, against the petitioner can be framed for the offences mentioned in the order. On the relevant date, the petitioner was on leave and Krishna Kumar himself had filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he acted in accordance with the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. On the relevant date, the petitioner was on leave and Krishna Kumar himself had filed an affidavit in which he has stated that he acted in accordance with the Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. He has further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is clear that Krishna Kumar was the person who had taken the money and had left the service on the very next day after giving his resignation. He has, also, submitted that with respect to the amount alleged to have been embezzled, the Chairman Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Peerkamni, has given receipt regarding receipt of the amount and, therefore, according to him, no case is made-out against the petitioner. Lastly, he has submitted that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated and the charges have been framed by the learned lower Court merely oh the basis of imagination. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court framing the charges against the petitioner. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned lower Court as well as the record of the case, which Was produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. After going through the record of the case and the order passed by the learned lower Court, I am of the view that the learned lower Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner. It cannot be said that there is no material on record on the basis of which the charges against the petitioner can hot be framed. There is evidence of Devi Singh, Lalchand, which shows that they paid the amount to accused Surjeet Singh himself, who after taking the amount, handed-over the same to Krishna Kumar. There is, also, other evidence on record which raises a suspicion against the accused-petitioner Surjeet Singh. The accused-petitioner was working as the Manager and it was his duty to collect the amount and to deposit the same in the bank. The amount was given to him. Even no proper receipt was issued by the accused persons and when the complaints regarding non-issuance of the proper receipt were made to accused Surjeet Singh, he over-looked those complaints. The accused-petitioner was working as the Manager and it was his duty to collect the amount and to deposit the same in the bank. The amount was given to him. Even no proper receipt was issued by the accused persons and when the complaints regarding non-issuance of the proper receipt were made to accused Surjeet Singh, he over-looked those complaints. Even on the date when the accused Krishna Kumar went on leave, the accused Surjeet Singh did not lake charge from Krishan Kumar. There are certain other circumstances, also, which prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner alongwith the accused Krishna Kumar. It cannot be said that there is no evidence on record for framing the charges against the accused-petitioner. Even in the Audit Report, on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, it has been mentioned that Surjeet Singh was negligent in discharging his duties and for that an administrative enquiry has been proposed in the Audit Report. Whether accused Surjeet Singh was negligent in discharging his duties or was he in hand and glover with the accused Krishna Kumar, cannot be said at this stage. At the time of framing the charge, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes-out a case for conviction and if it is so then the charges can be framed. But if the unrebutted evidence itself does not disclose that the accused has committed the offence, than the charge should not be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken out at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the Court has to evaluate the evidence at the initial stage, and even the presence of a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner. After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned tower Court, framing the charges against the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity and does not require any interference. After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned tower Court, framing the charges against the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity and does not require any interference. The order passed by the learned tower Court is just and proper. 7. The result is that this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has got no force and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******