JUDGMENT - DAUD S.M., J.:—This application under section 482 read with 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', is directed against an order of discharge made under section 245(1) of the Code. 2. Applicant-complainant was the Chairman of a Co-operative Society doing business in the name and style of Sarvodaya Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. at village Kodoli, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur. One of his predecessors-in-office was Dattatraya Patil, who shall hereinafter be referred to as accused No. 2. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 3) were paid employees of the society being the Secretary and Depot Manager respectively. 3. It was the complainant's case set out in a private complaint lodged with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panhala that he had probed the account books and papers of the Society during the tenure of accused No. 2's Chairmanship. Incidentally accused No. 2 though dead at the date of the filing of the complaint was nonetheless impleaded as an accused. As office-bearers of the society, accused Nos. 1 to 3 had dominion and control over the funds and books of the society. His scrutiny showed that accused had in furtherance of a common intention misappropriated several sums of money. To cover up these misappropriations, they had fabricated documents, the particulars whereof are thus:— (1) Showing an alleged payment of Rs. 337/- on 14-2-1976 being salary paid to Vishwanath Shete, Rajendra Petakar and Joseph Chopade of Kodoli. Vishwanath Shete and Rajendra Petakar had not worked for the Society in the period for which they had been purported to be paid a salary. There was no person by name of Joseph Chopade at Kodoli. Documents relating to this amount were forgeries. (2) A sum of Rs. 551/- was shown to have been debited toward repairs carried out in the foodgrain shop run by the society. The sum was alleged to have been paid to Yeshwant Rama Sutar. No person of this name resided at Kodoli and the entries made were to cover up a defalcation of the amount by the accused. (3) On 14-2-1976, the account books of the Society showed a payment of Rs. 713/ - to a stationer of Kolhapur. There existed a receipt also. Enquiries revealed that the stationer had been paid only Rs. No person of this name resided at Kodoli and the entries made were to cover up a defalcation of the amount by the accused. (3) On 14-2-1976, the account books of the Society showed a payment of Rs. 713/ - to a stationer of Kolhapur. There existed a receipt also. Enquiries revealed that the stationer had been paid only Rs. 3/- and that the receipt issued by the said person had been tampered with to show the payment of Rs. 713/-. (4) The Society had never taken any premises on rent and yet there existed a document to show payment of Rs. 750/- towards rent for a godown to one Sonappa Gawade. (5) Receipts passed by Ashok Mahapure acknowledging payment of Rs. 650/- to him for painting of an iron tank and a godown were fabrications inasmuch as no such work had been done. (6) The Society's accounts showed a debit of Rs. 250/- towards the purchase and installation of frames in the godown of the society. No work of this nature had been done. (7) Accused No. 1 was not entitled to bonus and allowances and yet was shown to have been paid Rs. 500/-, Rs. 180/- and Rs. 90/- on these counts. (8) For sale of fertiliser the customers were to be given a rebate directly from the bill, issued on purchase made by them. Instead of so doing, the accused had prepared a false record to show the payment of rebate totalling Rs. 2097.50 ps. in cash to customers. The above were instances of misappropriation, breach of trust, cheating and forgery etc. etc. effected in furtherance of a common intention by the accused persons. They had therefore rendered themselves liable to punishment under sections 406, 409, 420 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case being a warrant-case instituted otherwise than on police report, the Magistrate called upon the prosecution to lead all such evidence as they wanted to adduce. In response to this, the complainant examined himself. Rajendra Petakar, Vishwanath Shete, Bhalchandra Kulkarni. Shamrao Rabade and Dattatraya Mehta. Complainant brought on record a certain number of documents—mostly vouchers said to be fabrications of the accused with a view to cover up their defalcations. The vouchers were accompanied by receipts passed by certain payees, these vouchers being pay-orders under the signatures of issuer and checker, Secretary and Chairman. Rajendra Petakar, Vishwanath Shete, Bhalchandra Kulkarni. Shamrao Rabade and Dattatraya Mehta. Complainant brought on record a certain number of documents—mostly vouchers said to be fabrications of the accused with a view to cover up their defalcations. The vouchers were accompanied by receipts passed by certain payees, these vouchers being pay-orders under the signatures of issuer and checker, Secretary and Chairman. Possibly the work of issuer and/or checker was performed by accused No. 3. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were of course the Secretary and Chairman respectively. Complainant admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the contents appearing in the documents. The custodian of the society's cash was, according to complainant, accused No. 1. Joseph Chopade did not exist. Vouchers showing payment of Rs. 650/- to Ashok Mahapure were concoctions for there had been no work carried out as mentioned in the said vouchers. The payment of Rs. 551/- to Yeshwant Rama Sutar was a fib because no person named Yeshwant Rama existed and there was carried out no work like repairs to window frames. The entry for Rs. 713/- allegedly paid to Mehta Co. was false as enquiries made with the concern showed that they had been paid only Rs. 3/- for the stationery purchased from them. The payment of Rs. 750/- towards godown rent to Sonappa was a fake entry. No person by the name of Sonappa Gawade resided at Kodoli. Rebate was not distributed in cash and yet the contrary impression was sought to be created by the entry made in the cash book. Accused No. 1 was not entitled to bonus or allowance yet he had pocketed different sums under these heads. Complainant identified different documents as bearing the signatures of accused Nos. 1 to 3. Cross-examined, the complainant came with various answers which have been either referred to in the impugned order or relied upon by the Counsel for the accused to support the said order. First complainant admits that the Christian population of Kodoli is in the neighbourhood of about 3000. That apart, the total population of Kodoli is around 20,000 and there is a floating population because of people coming from different parts, working at Kodoli and its vicinity and then returning to their respective homes. Complainant has professed ignorance of encomiums earned by the Society from an auditor for the good work done since 1966 to 1975. That apart, the total population of Kodoli is around 20,000 and there is a floating population because of people coming from different parts, working at Kodoli and its vicinity and then returning to their respective homes. Complainant has professed ignorance of encomiums earned by the Society from an auditor for the good work done since 1966 to 1975. An auditor A.R. Mane by name is said to have taken exception to various transactions recorded in the accounts maintained by the accused. No such written objections have been produced by the complainant, and of course, he has not examined the auditor. Complainant admits that his father was a member of a panel which contested elections to the Managing Body of the Society against accused No. 2. Apparently the witness and his father were defeated on a number of occasions by the panel led by accused No. 2. He admits that no report was lodged with the Police against the accused in relation to the working of the society. Complainant admits that the society functioned through the different departments. These departments were manned by about 25 persons each department having a separate head. Accused No. 1 was a general supervisor of sorts. In the very next breath, complainant denied the suggestion about accused No. 1 not being directly connected with the day-to-day transactions of the society. In the examination-in-chief complainant had come out with the allegation that Sonappa Gawade was not a resident of village Kodoli. The absence from Kodoli of a resident bearing that name was not mentioned in the complaint. No reason could be given by him for the omission. The actual payments were to be made by the cashier, albeit with the consent of the Secretary and the Chairman. Complainant denied that accused No. 3 was a mere clerk during the period figuring in the complaint. The next witness was Rajendra Petakar. His version is that he was in the employ of the Society in the year 1972-1973 and not July to October 1975. Exhibit 35/27 was shown to him and he denied that he had received the amount mentioned therein or that the signature thereon was his. Witness was in the employ of some credit institute and admitted that the complainant was a member of the said institute. Vishwanath Shete denied the contents of Exhibit 35/37. Exhibit 35/27 was shown to him and he denied that he had received the amount mentioned therein or that the signature thereon was his. Witness was in the employ of some credit institute and admitted that the complainant was a member of the said institute. Vishwanath Shete denied the contents of Exhibit 35/37. Bhalchandra Kulkarni is a Gramsevak of village Kodoli and, that apart he happens to be a native of the village. He testified that no person answering to the names of Joseph Chopade. Yeshwant Rama Sutar. Sonappa Gawade resided at Kodoli. In cross-examination the witness admitted that Kodoli had a floating population and that of these visitors he had no knowledge. Shyamrao Rabade was the Manager of the society's fertiliser depot. For the period July to November 1975 according to Shyamrao, Joseph Chopade, Rajendra Petakar, Vishwanath Shete were not employees. No repairs of the grocery shop had been carried out in the year 1975. No premises had been taken on lease by the Society. There was no godown standing in the name of Sonappa Gawade. By and large the witness stood unshaken in the cross-examination. 5. The question arising for decision is whether the evidence summarised above is so deficient as to improbabilise a conviction even if unrebutted? The learned Magistrate below has so held and it is the correctness of that view which is under challenge in this proceeding. 6. The Scheme of Chapter XIX in particular sections 244 to 248 has to be understood in its proper perspective. The stage contemplated by section 244 is reached only after cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate under section 190 read with section 200. The purpose behind calling upon the prosecution to adduce all such evidence as it desires vide section 244 is to ensure justice to the parties even at the initial stages. The prosecution is not to be restricted to the recitals in the complaint or the verification statement. But there is the other side i.e. the accused. To ensure fairness to the accused section 245 provides for his discharge if the evidence adduced under the preceding section is such as would not warrant a conviction. Framing of a charge is not foreclosing the options of the accused. He still has the opportunity to get recalled for further cross -examination the witnesses already examined under section 244, Criminal Procedure Code. Framing of a charge is not foreclosing the options of the accused. He still has the opportunity to get recalled for further cross -examination the witnesses already examined under section 244, Criminal Procedure Code. Next he can lead evidence in his defence. Comes the final stage when the Magistrate either acquits or convicts the accused under sections 247/248. This has to be upon 'findings'. The key words used in sections 245 and 247/248 are 'considers' and 'finds'. The first implies “thinking seriously or carefully” while the second mean “to determine after inquiry”. There may be a certain degree of overlapping in the two expressions. That however does not mean that they have the same connotations. Thought has to go into consideration as also a finding. But the extent of thought to be expended for two exercises will differ in quantity as also quality. The word 'considers' denotes a prima facie approach. I should not be understood as saying that this means a superficial perfunctory or cursory approach. What is meant is an appraisal to weed out the incredible and the patently unbelievable. As against this, the appraisal for reaching a finding entails that scrutiny which a person versed in law bestows on a matter. This is done with the realisation that though crime and the perpetrators thereof have to be punished, the reputation, liberty and property of the person accused is at stake necessitating caution. 7. The evidence summarised above does not warrant the verdict of the Magistrate. His reasoning begins at para 7 of the judgment and a close analysis will establish the above. Para 7 speaks of complainant not being personally conversant with the transactions described as fictitious in the complaint. This statement disregards the assertion of complainant and Kulkarni about the non-existence of Yeshwant Rama Sutar and Sonappa Gawade as also the Society never having taken any premises on rent. The non-examination of the Auditor does not wash away what has been said by the complainant vis a vis the non-existence of Yeshwant and Sonappa. The learned Magistrate is factually wrong when he says that the complaint makes no mention of the exact sums misappropriated. Exception is taken to the absence of a resolution authorising complainant to file the complaint. This absence is of no relevance to the determination the Magistrate was called upon to make. The learned Magistrate is factually wrong when he says that the complaint makes no mention of the exact sums misappropriated. Exception is taken to the absence of a resolution authorising complainant to file the complaint. This absence is of no relevance to the determination the Magistrate was called upon to make. Complainant's failure to move the police before coming to the Magistrate may be motivated. But that is not proof of the baselessness of his complaint. Complainant has not given an unequivocal admission of accused No. 1 being a mere supervisor or placing his signatures on various papers in the routine course as is stated in the impugned verdict. On the other hand he has denied the suggestion that accused No. 1 was not concerned with the day-to-day cash transactions. Complainant's giving of evasive answers will not lead to the inference that his case stands refuted in limine. Rajendra Petakar disclaims the signature on Exhibit 35/27 and says he did not work for the society from July to October 1975 as the document purports to show. To the same effect is Vishwanath Shete's version. Neither of them has been effectively shaken in cross-examination. The last witness was asked to correlate the transaction recorded in Exh. 35/5 to the corresponding entry made in his master's sale register. While Exhibit 35/5 gives the impression of the price paid being Rs. 173/- the corresponding sales register entry is for Rs. 3/- only. Answers given in cross-examination do not take the sting out of the replies summarised above. It is difficult to agree with the Magistrate's assertion that the material summarised above does not require a refutation and even if left by itself, would not warrant a conviction. Complainant, we may assume, is actuated by base considerations of revenge and ill-will. But prosecutions so actuated do not wash away the crime of the offender if otherwise established. Learned Counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 3 contend that complainant has not been prevented from adducing evidence. I do not see how this can be a reason for sustaining a wrong order. It was further submitted that a possible view of the evidence has been taken and I should not interfere, more so, because the verdict is one of discharge. 1 and 3 contend that complainant has not been prevented from adducing evidence. I do not see how this can be a reason for sustaining a wrong order. It was further submitted that a possible view of the evidence has been taken and I should not interfere, more so, because the verdict is one of discharge. There would be merit in this contention had not the Magistrate misread and misconstrued the evidence and overshot the limitations constituting the parameters within which he had to operate. The evidence adduced required a refutation and as it stood, could not be said not to warrant a conviction. 8. The revision succeeds and the order of the Magistrate discharging respondents Nos. 1 and 2, is quashed. Rule made absolute with a direction to the Magistrate to hear parties and frame an appropriate charge. Complainant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to appear before the Magistrate on 9th December, 1991 so that the case can be further proceeded with. Writ be despatched immediately. Revision allowed. -----