JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 12-10-93, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Barmer, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner as well as against Shyam Sunder Sharma, Krishna Mohan Mishra and Jalal for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 17-6-84, an FIR. was lodged at Police Station, Chauhtan (district Barmer) against Champa Lal and Meth Mr. Jalal for embezzlement of certain amount relating to Muster Roll Numbers 318503 to 318510 regarding the payments in the Famine Relief Works. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Hari Prasad-the Junior Engineer, and Champa Lal - the Clerk in the Tehsil Office, Chauhtan, who disbursed the amount at the relevant time, for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B I.P.C. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, who was the ln charge of the case, for taking cognizance against Shyam Sunder Sharma - the Executive Engineer, Krishna Mohan Mishra-the Assistant Engineer, Arjun Singh-the Tehsildar (the present petitioner) and Jalal Meth, and some other persons, who were connected with the Famine work performed. The learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 12-10-93, allowed the application dated 5-10-93, filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and took cognizance against Shyam Sunder Sharma - the Executive Engineer, Krishna Mohan Mishra - the Assistant Engineer, Meth Mr. Jalal and the petitioner who was working as the Tehsildar in the area. It is against this order that the petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case for taking cognizance against the petitioner is made-out from the averments made in the F.I.R. and from the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation and, therefore, the order, taking cognizance against the petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case for taking cognizance against the petitioner is made-out from the averments made in the F.I.R. and from the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency during the investigation and, therefore, the order, taking cognizance against the petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the miscellaneous petition, filed by co-accused Shyam Sunder Sharma, against whom the cognizance was, also, taken by the learned Magistrate by the same order, the order taking cognizance against him, has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 21-12-93, and as the case of the petitioner stands on better footing than the case against Shyam Sunder Sharma, therefore, the order taking cognizance against the petitioner, also, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of its contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over : Shyam Sunder Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and others, S.B. Criminal Misc. Case No. 645 of 1993 . The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Though at the time of taking the cognizance the Court is required only to see : whether there is any prima fade evidence against the accused which is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of truth of the fact unless controverted. At this stage, the Court is required only to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made-out to proceed-with against the accused and the meticulous examination of the evidence is not required to be made as it is required to be done at the final stage. Before proceeding against the accused it has to be seen by the Court : whether there is any prima facie evidence to proceed-with against the accused. if there is no prima facie evidence to connect the accused with any of the offences then the process cannot be issued as no person can be tried in the absence of any evidence connecting him with the crime. if there is no prima facie evidence to connect the accused with any of the offences then the process cannot be issued as no person can be tried in the absence of any evidence connecting him with the crime. In the present case, even as per the prosecution case, the Work Order for construction of the roads was issued by the Collector, Barmer, and the Muster Rolls regarding the construction work were handed-over by the Executive Engineer Shyam Sunder Sharma to the Assistant Engineer Krishna Mohan Mishra - the Assistant Engineer, who further gave them in the supervision of the Junior Engineer Hari Prasad Mishra and the work was got done in the supervision of Junior Engineer Hari Prasad Mishra and the Meth, at the relevant time, to supervise the work, was Mr. Jalal. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Muster Rolls were prepared by Hari Prasad Mishra. As per the orders of the Collector, Barmer, the payment was to be made by the petitioner, who, at the relevant time, was working as the Tehsildar, but he did not make payment and the payments were made by Champa Lal - the Clerk in the Tehsildar's Office. Rs. 5449.04p. were withdrawn from the Government Treasury and have been shown as "Payment to the Workers" but actually no payment was made as such and no work was got performed. The allegations against the petitioner is that he was to make payment but actually no payment was made by him and it was made by the aforesaid Champa Lal. Similar is the evidence collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. Thus, as per the prosecution case, the allegations against the petitioner is that he was to make payment of the work but actually the payments were made by Champa Lal and thereby the amount was embezzled by the accused persons. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 467, 471, 409 and 120-5 IPC are, therefore, not prima facie established against the accused-petitioner. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than the case against Shyam Sunder Sharma - the Executive Engineer - whose miscellaneous petition was allowed by this Court and the cognizance taken against him was quashed and set-aside. Thus, prima fade, no case is made-out against the petitioner to proceed with against him, also. 6. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than the case against Shyam Sunder Sharma - the Executive Engineer - whose miscellaneous petition was allowed by this Court and the cognizance taken against him was quashed and set-aside. Thus, prima fade, no case is made-out against the petitioner to proceed with against him, also. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The order dated 12-10-93, passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, harmer, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 471, 409 and 120-B I.P.C., is quashed and set-aside.Petition allowed. *******