JUDGMENT 1. - These two miscellaneous petitions are directed against the order dated 3-3-94, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Magistrate framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 I.P.C. 2. The order framing the charge have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that for the alleged embezzlement, the proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act were initiated against the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted, which ended in his favour and, therefore, after the initiation of the proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, the criminal proceedings with respect to the same amount cannot be initiated and the charge framed against the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside.The enquiry, conducted under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act and the criminal trials for the criminal offence do not stand on the same footing. The degree of the proof required in the enquiry under the Act and in a criminal trial is not the same and both can be allowed to continue together. The dominant purpose of criminal proceedings is to achieve the protection of public while that in the enquiry under the Act is to see the purity and efficiency in the administration of co-operative societies. The field of these two proceedings is quite different and distinct and both can go together and merely the initiation of the proceedings under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act or their ending in favour of the accused-petitioner cannot operate as a bar for the criminal prosecution. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to quash the charge on this count. 3. At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has merely to see : whether there is any evidence available on record which discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence and not to judge the evidence in a golden scale to see whether the trial will reasonably end in conviction. A strong suspicion emerging from the evidence is sufficient to frame the charges and to proceed-with the trial. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the case of the petitioner in the right perspective and rightly framed the charge against him. No case for interference is made-out. 4. A strong suspicion emerging from the evidence is sufficient to frame the charges and to proceed-with the trial. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the case of the petitioner in the right perspective and rightly framed the charge against him. No case for interference is made-out. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in these miscellaneous petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******