JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 dated 3-9-82 framing charges against the accused under Section 420, 468 and 120-B Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri R.R. Jain, Secretary, Vigilance Commission, Jaipur wrote a letter to DIG, Anti Corruption, stating therein that Gauri Shankar Goswami, General Manager, Rajasthan Kriya Vikraya Sangh, has misused his official capacity in sale of 18000 bags of Gawar and purchase of turmeric amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs. A case was registered on report on 14-9-72 and challan was put up against Shri Gauri Shankar, Shri Mahendra Shastri, Shri Saligram, Shri Prabhulal, Shri Basantlal, Shri Narayandas, Shri Amritlal, and Shri Ratilal. The proceedings were dropped by the Court on the ground that Shri Goswami is not a Government servant, therefore, the Special Court, Anti Corruption, Jaipur is not competent to try that offence. Then the challan was put up in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1. The Judicial Magistrate transferred it to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 15. It was again transferred and ultimately come back to the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 The learned Magistrate took the cognizance against Gauri Shanksr but did not took the cognizance against Mahendra Shastri, Saligram and Amritlal who had expired in the meantime. He also took cognizance against Prabhu Dayal, Ramesh Chand, Basantlal and Narayandas and in framing charges dealt with the case of the petitioner in Para 4 in which he has simply stated that Ramesh Chand was a partner in the firm Saligram Ramesh Chand alongwith his father Saligram, therefore, charges against under Sections 124-H, 420 and 468 were framed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no iota of evidence that the petitioner has taken any part in any conspiracy alongwith accused persons or have cheated in any way to Rajya Kriya Vikray Sangh in this matter, the charges have wrongly been framed against him. Learned P.P. has not controverted this factual position. 4. Admittedly, when accused petitioner Ramesh Chand has neither taken part in any conspiracy alongwith the accused persons, nor has any role in cheating the Rajya Kraya Vikray Sangh in the transactions in question nor he has forged any document, I surprise, how he can be charged for the offence under Section 120-B, 420 and 468. 4. Admittedly, when accused petitioner Ramesh Chand has neither taken part in any conspiracy alongwith the accused persons, nor has any role in cheating the Rajya Kraya Vikray Sangh in the transactions in question nor he has forged any document, I surprise, how he can be charged for the offence under Section 120-B, 420 and 468. Merely on the ground that he was a sleeping partner of the firm. Saligram Ramesh Chand in which his father was also a partner, if his father has committed any offence, how son can be penalised when he has no knowledge of (his father's) activities or commission of offence. In this view of the matter, the order of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, dated 3.9-92 is set aside to the extent of charge levelled against Ramesh Chand, petitioner.The misc. petition is allowed. *******