By this criminal revision under section 397/401/482/Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 1.7.91 passed by Shri E. Warjri, Special Judge, Shillong in GR Case No. 21/92 framing charge against him. The learned Special Judge has not shown the section of the crime under which the charges were framed even on 20.8.92 when he sent the records of the case to this Court. However, since the I/O file the charge sheet U/Ss 471/401/47/-A/120B. I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against all the accused it can be presumed that he in his mind had framed charges under those sections. 2. The case for the prosecution was this : On 6.2.92 Shri K. Krishnan, Superintendent of Police Nongstoin gave an FIR to the O/C Nongstoin PS stating that an Account Officer who conducted the audit with Shri S.D. Verma, Internal Auditor of the office of the I.G.P. gave report that there was discrepancy of Rs. 5,81,012.22 in the account of S.P. Office Nongstoin, during the period from July 80 to March 81. It was stated that while Shri B. Roy and Shri L. Sailo were the S.P.s at Nongstoin A.S.I. FG Momin who worked as accountant prepared bills with forged signature of Sri L. Sailo, the SP and he ( FG Momin) in collusion with Hav K. Das who then worked as his Peon in-charge for Treasury and Bank duty, drew the said amount from the treasury and misappropriated the entire amount. On this FIR the O/C registered case No 5 (2)/82 U/Ss 468/489/477A I.P.C. against F.G. Momin and Hav K. Das and entrusted Inspector H.K. Lahon of Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) to investigate the case. Thereafter, on 13.3.82 the informant again lodged another FIR stating that during the period from 1st April/81 to 1st July /81 while Sri L. Sailo was the SP, ASIFG Momin who was in charge of Account drew a further amount of Rs. 1,95,793.83 by preparing false bills and forging the officer's signatures and this amount was also misappropriated. ASI F.G. Momin subsequently resigned his post and left Nongstoin. During investigation the I/O seized all the relevant papers and registers and arrested (1) FG Momin Ex ASI (2) Klen Singh Sohshang Peon of SP. Office (3) K.C. Swer Stamp Assistant of Treasury (4) WR. ASI F.G. Momin subsequently resigned his post and left Nongstoin. During investigation the I/O seized all the relevant papers and registers and arrested (1) FG Momin Ex ASI (2) Klen Singh Sohshang Peon of SP. Office (3) K.C. Swer Stamp Assistant of Treasury (4) WR. Wahlang, Accountant of Treasury (5) Umed Singh Mahato, Peon of Treasury and (6) Hav L Khagen Chandra Das. He did not arrest Gratefulwell Tyngsong, as he was an officer. Accused Klen Singh Sohshang, FG Momin and KC. Swer confessed their guilt and their confession were recorded by a Magistrate at Nongstoin under Section 164 Cr. P.C.. Accused Khagen Ch. Das died during investigation. Upon investigation the I/O found that accused FG Momin who was working as Accountant prepared the bills by forging the signature of Sri B. Roy and Sri L. Sailo, the then SP and he, in collusion with (1) Hav Khagen Ch Das (deceased), (2) Klen Singh Sohshang (3) KC Swer,(4) WR Wahlang (5) Umed Singh Mahato and (6) Gratefulwell Tynsong, drew Rs. 7,76,866.08 from the Treasury and they all misappropriated the entire amount. So, the I/O obtained sanction on 30.6.88 to prosecute (1) FG Momin, (2) Kien Singh Sohshang (3) KC Swer, (4) WR Wahlang (5) Umed Singh Mahato and (6) Grateful well Tynsong and submitted Charge Sheet dated 5.8.82 to A.D.M. Nongstoin, against these six accused U/Ss 471/409/47/-A/120 B IPC read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the Charge Sheet the I/O gave a list of 45 P. Ws. which include Sri B. Roy and Sri L. Sailo the S.Ps. and other personnel of the Treasury office and the State Bank. 3. On 20.6.89 the ADM sought permission from the Law Department to transfer the case to Session Judge. The Law Department then directed him to send the case to Special Judge, Shillong for trial. The case was revived by the learned Special Judge Shillong on 2.4.90. He recorded in the order sheet on 1.7.91 that all the accused persons except FG Momin were present but on that date he took up the case of accused KC Swer (petitioner) WR Wahlang and Grateful well Tynsong only. He found that except in the confession of co-accused there were no materials against WR Wahlang the Accountant, and Grateful well Tynsong, the Treasury Officer. He found that except in the confession of co-accused there were no materials against WR Wahlang the Accountant, and Grateful well Tynsong, the Treasury Officer. Then he held that confession of co-accused was no evidence and, therefore, no charge could be framed against accused WR Wahlang and Gratefulwell Tynsong. Accordingly he discharged these accused from the case. But as regards the petitioner he found that he also confessed his guilt and besides his own confession there were material against him in the statement made by P. Ws. 18,19 and 22 before the I/O. Thus he framed charge against him. As stated before the order show that all the accused except FG Momin were present on 1.7.91; but he did not record as to why that date he did take up the case of other 2 accused who were present, namely (1) Klen Singh Sohshang and (2) Umed Singh Mahato. 4. Mr. A.R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that prima facie case was disclosed against Wr Wahlang the accountant and Gratefulwell Tynsong, the treasury officer and not against the petitioner who was a mere Stamp Assistant and, as such he was not required to pass the bill for the payment. He severely criticized the order dated 1.7.91 and submitted that this is a fit case for quashing the framing of charge against the petitioner. 5. The learned Special Judge framed charge against the petitioner on the basis of his own confession and the statement made by PWs 18,19 and 22 before I/O. It is therefore necessary to examine the confession made by the petitioner before the Magistrate and the statements made by these 3 PWs before the I/O. The confession made by the petitioner is this : "My job in the treasury office is as a Stamp assistant. I also do estab­lishment works and also for passing the bills. I always do my work carefully. When I am in me treasury office I always checked and passed the police oils. The police Bills are usually submitted to the assistant who issued the token along with the police transit register. After the tokens are issued the bills are brought to my table. Then I started my work of checking and when the bills are not in order I rejected. The bills passed by me are then sent to the accountant of the treasury. After the tokens are issued the bills are brought to my table. Then I started my work of checking and when the bills are not in order I rejected. The bills passed by me are then sent to the accountant of the treasury. The bills are then checked by the accountant and if there is any mistake, the bills are rejected and if the bills are in order the accountant gave his signature and give to any of the assistant who has less work for entering in the scroll. Then the bills are sent to Treasury Officer for signature. Then the Treasury Officer will sign the bills if they are in order and if not he will reject them. Then the bill are sent to the bank. When some of the bills are rejected ASI Momin used to come by himself to meet me, the accountant and the T.O. to get the bills passed after correction on the reasons that the SP need the money urgently or that some of the police staff live in far away places and had to leave very soon. The bills with minor objections are released after consultation with the accountant and, T.O. When checking the police bills I found that the signatures head of accounts, head of accounts sanction allotment are in order and correct". 6. The statement of PWs 18, 19 and 22 before the I/O are as follows : PW18 Bela Swer: "K.C. Swer and his parents are distantly related to her. Their financial condition was not sound. But they purchased 5 second hand vehicles and registered them in the name of his father and mother". PW19 Dhiren Roy Chyne, the father of K.C. Swer. "He is a farmer. He has betel Nut grooves, orange grooves- paddy land etc and timber business and his yearly income is Rs. 80,000/-. He stated that his son K.C. Swer did not contribute money to them; he purchased the vehicles with his own income. He purchased new trucks-MLS 8233 at Rs. 70,000/-, Jeep No MLS 8468 at Rs. 10,000/-, Jeep No. MLS 8297 at Rs. 10,000/- and his wife Ka Kyrsiban Swer purchased truck No. 7673 at Rs. 85,000/-, Jeep No. .MLS 233 at Rs. 10,000 and his wife is yet to pay Rs. 53,000 to Mahtor Agat walla". PW 22 Shri Illiam Khap is a Sardar of Mawlong Sardar ship. 70,000/-, Jeep No MLS 8468 at Rs. 10,000/-, Jeep No. MLS 8297 at Rs. 10,000/- and his wife Ka Kyrsiban Swer purchased truck No. 7673 at Rs. 85,000/-, Jeep No. .MLS 233 at Rs. 10,000 and his wife is yet to pay Rs. 53,000 to Mahtor Agat walla". PW 22 Shri Illiam Khap is a Sardar of Mawlong Sardar ship. He knew very person of his Sardarship and their properties. He has stated that Chyne has no other business except some cultivation and he was living with the income from cultivation from hand to mouth. 7. Confession in a criminal case means admissions of guilt. In his "confession" the petitioner nowhere admitted his guilt. He did not say that he was required to sign in the bill. What he stated is that he was to see that signatures, head of Accountant and sanction allotment are in order and that the Accountant and Treasury officer have to sign the bills and bills with minor objections are released after consultation with the Accountant and T.O. This is not an admission of guilt. Therefore the Magistrate should not have recorded such a statement U/S 164 Cr. P.C. The statements made by the PWs 18, 19 and 22 before the I/O which have been reproduced above also do not show that the petitioner was responsible for the payment of the money from the Treasury. When this "confession" and the state­ments made by PWs 18,19 and 22 and before the I/O are brought out by me. Mr. Lamare learned P.P. has not been able to support the framing of charge against the petitioner. However, he contended that, apart from those there are some other 'materials which if considered along with the said materials would give a prima facie case for framing charge against the petitioner. He therefore, supported the order. He then, referred to page 128 of the original record which is report dated 10.10.86 from Government Examiner addressed to the District Magistrate Negation. But this letter does not even utter the name of the petitioner. The other paper to which Mr. Lamare has referred is at page 140 of the original record which is a letter dated 12.2.87 from the Addl. District Magistrate, Nongstoin, to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. By this letter the Addl. But this letter does not even utter the name of the petitioner. The other paper to which Mr. Lamare has referred is at page 140 of the original record which is a letter dated 12.2.87 from the Addl. District Magistrate, Nongstoin, to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory. By this letter the Addl. District Magistrate only requested that the admitted signatures of Shri KC Swer may be examined further and compared with the questioned signatures. Yet another paper to which Mr. Lamare referred is at page 125 of the original record. This is a letter dated 28.2.87 from the Government Examiner of documents to the District Magistrate, Nongstoin, which say that the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked 5 77 to 5 80 and A-4 to A-13 also wrote the Red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked K-l to K-81. But these papers namely pages 128, 140 and 125 do not contribute anything for making out a prima facie case against the petitioner. None of the papers go to show that in the treasury, the petitioner, who is a stamp assistant and do not the Accountant and Treasury Officer, was responsible for handing over the money by the Bank. 8. A charge could be framed against an accused if there is prima facie case against him. The meaning of Prima facie in a criminal case is that if the evidence disclosed in the charge sheet which comprised various documents and the state­ments of witnesses before the I/O and the confessions made before the Magistrate comes as it is at the trial, a conviction would be possible. In the instant case even if the materials contained in the statements made by PWs 18,19 and 22 before the I/O and the papers at page 128, 140 and 125 come in the trial as it is, it would not be possible for the trial Court to convict the petitioner under any of the Sections shown in the charge sheet. The order gives an impression that the petitioner has been victimized because he is weaker than the other two who are his superior. I am therefore clearly of the view that this is eminently a fit case in which this court in exercise of the revisional power should interfere with the order. Accordingly, I quash and set aside the order dtd. I am therefore clearly of the view that this is eminently a fit case in which this court in exercise of the revisional power should interfere with the order. Accordingly, I quash and set aside the order dtd. 1.7.91 passed by the learned Special Judge framing charge against the petitioner and discharge him from the case. 9. I now consider the case of WR Wahlang, Accountant, and Gratefulwell Tynsong, Treasury Officer who are impleaded as O.P. No. 4 and 3 to this revision. Investigations reveal that defalcation took place during the period while Sri B. Roy and Sri L. Sailo were the S. Ps at Nongstoin. The statements made by Sri. S. Roy, SP before the I/O are these : At the time of detection he was SP, Williamnagar. He was SP Nongstoin till Sept/80 and transferred to Williamnagar as SP. He gave charge to DSP. H. Teriang in absense of the reliever Shri L. Sailo, IPS. Since there was no accountant posted he authorised ASI. FG Momin to work as accountant and to handle the cash book etc. from April/80. ASI F.G. Momin was found working satisfactorily as accountant and there was no fault found officially. He was not aware that ASI F.G. Momin made false bills on different heads and putting his (SP's) signature had drawn from bank. On checking the bills seized by the I/O he has gone through it to find all eight bills drawn in his period are false and his signature were forged. He completely denied the signature of the bills. He suspected that the signatures were put by ASI F.G. Momin. The bills are completely false. The statement of L. Sailo, SP before the I/O is this: He took charge of West Khasi Hills district in Oct/80 from DSP Shri Tariang who took overcharge from Shri B. Roy, APS, who was transferred to Williamnagar as SP. ASI F.G. Momin was working as Accountant in the office before his joining being entrusted by his predecessor Shri B. Roy. Since the work of accountant was found satisfactory, he also asked the ASI to continue the work as accountant. There was no sign of any falsification of bill in any record of his office which were all correct. He was not aware that ASI had drawn huge amount in different heads by making false bills and put his signature in his period. One. There was no sign of any falsification of bill in any record of his office which were all correct. He was not aware that ASI had drawn huge amount in different heads by making false bills and put his signature in his period. One. B. Roy passed these bills which were recently made in his house by taking from SP's seal etc. He was transferred to PTS (Police Training Centre) in July/81. Leaving charge with DSP Tariang after detection of defalcation of huge amount from July/80 to July/81 in both his and Shri B. Roy's period, he checked the bills at PS office and found all signatures are forged and the bills are false. Money of the defalcated amount were drawn and there is no entry in the office record. He suspected that ASI. FG. Momin with connivance with others has committed the crime. 10. ASI FG Momin made the following confession before the Magistrate : In the year 1978 I was posted in the SP Office at Nongstoin in the Account Branch. I learnt the account works for preparing the bills with Senior staff by the name Klensing Sohshang and Sri A. Kharamjai. In the year 19801 was given to be the accountant by Shri B. Roy, SP, for maintaining the cash. I work there very sincerely to the full satisfaction of my higher authorities but in the month of July/80 I was called by Shri K. Sohshang and KC Swer to the office of Nongstoin treasury where accountant RW Wahlang was also there. I was then instigated to prepare false bills. Then KC Swer and accountant Shri Wahlang told me that the false bills could easily be passed. Then I also agreed to prepare false bills. Then I used to send the false bills through Hav. K. C. Das to the treasury Hav. KC. Das also knew very well that they were false bills. The money was drawn through these false bills by Hav. K.C. Das. After drawal of the money, the money was taken to my residence. Then K.C. Swer and Shri Wahlang came to collect the money. The drawn money used to be divided into seven shares among myself. KC. Das, K. Sohshang, KC Swer, RW Wahlang, Singh treasury peon and treasury officer. We had drawn an amount of eight lakhs out of these false bills from which I have earned Rs. 1,12,000.00. Then K.C. Swer and Shri Wahlang came to collect the money. The drawn money used to be divided into seven shares among myself. KC. Das, K. Sohshang, KC Swer, RW Wahlang, Singh treasury peon and treasury officer. We had drawn an amount of eight lakhs out of these false bills from which I have earned Rs. 1,12,000.00. For the share of the money for the treasury people Shri. K.C. Swer and W.R. Wahlang used to collect which was a major part, since they have four people. I got an almost equal share of amount with Shri. K. Sohshang while Hav. K. Das got less. As I was advised by Shri. K.C. Swer and RW Wahlang, I tendered my resignation as I may be caught by the higher authorities or auditors. For fearing of this I tendered my resignation in the month of July, 1981. The practice of preparing false bills continued till my resignation. The money was all along with me when I left Nongstoin after resignation and I took all the money home. Then I have invested Rs. 65,000/- in coal operation of two quarries keeping the money through one Shri Agil Marak and his brother Romi Marak at Agreng in the district of Garo Hills. Rs. 19,000/- was invested in wine store at Rongjeng with two partners viz. Shri. Tobinath Sangma and one Mohan Mazi. I have also given on loan Rs. 1,000/- to the three centre teachers viz. Rongjing centre teacher, Nongal bitra centre teacher and Rengbook centre teacher. Rest of the money I have utilised for personal affairs. 11. In the bills submitted to the treasury the signatures of B. Roy and L. Sailo, SPs were forged and yet the Accountant and the Treasury Officer passed those bills for payment. This/apart, the Treasury Rules provide as follows: 12. The Treasury Officer is held personally responsible for all sums of money disbursed by him in a public capacity without authority. For the custody of the cash balance, he is jointly responsible with the Treasurer. 13. The Audit Officer will supply all Treasury Officers within his area with a copy of the specimen signatures of all gazette officers serving under him who are authorised to sign payment orders on bills and vouchers or go or to issue letters of authority for payments to be made at Treasuries. 13. The Audit Officer will supply all Treasury Officers within his area with a copy of the specimen signatures of all gazette officers serving under him who are authorised to sign payment orders on bills and vouchers or go or to issue letters of authority for payments to be made at Treasuries. Before a Treasuries officers pays a bill on the authority of an order purporting to have been issued from the audit office, he should verify the signatures. on the order by comparison with the specimen signatures of the signing officer. 14. If the Accountant and the Treasury Officer passed the bills in which the signatures of the drawing officer were forged will they not be responsible ? It was for them to see the signatures by comparing with the specimen signatures which are kept with them. It may be that in this case they are innocent; but for framing charge the Court is concerned only with the materials on record. In the instant case, the materials which I have reproduced above, give a clear prima facie case against accused WR Wahlang and Grateful well Tensing. There are also documents and statements of other PWs which I have not perused. It seems that the learned Special Judge discharged these two persons because he felt embarrassed to frame charge against the fellow officer. A judge can not be like that; he has to do his duty, whether they are guilty or not - will be decided after the prosecution had examined P.Ws. If in cross examination the defence can demolish the evidence of P.Ws they will be acquitted. It is difficult to understand why in the instant case the state did not prefer an appeal or revision against the discharge of W. R. Wahlang and Gratefulwell Tynsang. If the petitioner did not bring this revision the case against them would have been buried for good. 15. Mr. B. Endow, learned counsel who appeared for Gratefulwell Tynsong ( O.P. No.3) submitted that the case against his client need not be re-opened because the state did not prefer revision against his discharge. I mention this only for rejecting. Under revisional jurisdiction, this Court can examine the records and passed order as may be thought fit for ends of justice even if no application is brought before this Court to that effect. It may be noted that Mr. I mention this only for rejecting. Under revisional jurisdiction, this Court can examine the records and passed order as may be thought fit for ends of justice even if no application is brought before this Court to that effect. It may be noted that Mr. Endow did not have the boldness to say that the orders discharging his client was justified. Mr. K.S. Kynjing has appeared for WR Wahlang (OP. No.4). 16. The charges in regard to accused FG Momin, Klensingh Sohshang and Umed Singh Mahato are yet to be considered by the trial court. As there are prima facie case against FG Momin, WR. Wahlang and Gratefulwell Tynsong, I set aside the discharge of accused WR Wahlang and Gratefulwell Tynsong and direct the trial Court to frame charge against these three accused, namely, 1) FG Momin, 2) WR Wahlang and 3) Gratefulwell Tynsong. 17. As regards accused Klensingh Sohshang and Umed Singh Mahato, I have not perused the papers. The trial Court, therefore, will consider the framing of charge against these two on perusal of the relevant papers on record. It is made clear that if the charges are framed, Section of the crime shall be specifically shown; otherwise the accused may be handicapped to plan his defence at the trial. 18. The instant case is of the nature of a security scam, which rocked the Parliament in the Current year (1992), and in this case a police officer (A.S.I.) appears to be the prime accused. The occurrence took place in 1980-81 when value of money was much higher. I, therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, for his perusal. With respect, I would request him to see that the prosecution is properly conducted in the case.