JUDGMENT 1. - Ali the aforesaid four criminal revisions may be disposed of by a common order as common question of law and facts are involved in the same. 2. The Depot Manager, R.S.R.T.C. Kota, Shri Satya Narain Sharma made a report at Police Station, Nayapura, Kota on 2.5.87. On this report Crime No. 138/87 was registered under Section 409 I.P.C. In the report, the allegation was against Sohan Lai, Booking Clerk to have embezzled a sum of Rs. 3,08,900/- by selling tickets. The petitioner was Store Clerk at the relevant time. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation four charge-sheets were filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kola on 6.12.88 under sections-409, 120B and 109 IPC against Sohan Lal, Jagdish Narain, Bal Mukand, Ram Avtar and the petitioner. The petitioner was impleaded as an accused on the ground that he did not physically verify the challans and the available tickets with the Booking Clerk Sohan Lal before issuing tickets to him from the store and by this omission on his part Sohan Lal succeeded in obtaining the tickets from the store and thereafter in embezzling the amount by selling the said tickets without showing in the stock register and without depositing the amount. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 173/94, the period of embezzlement is 1.1.86 to 31.12.86 and the amount embezzled by Booking Clerk Sohan Lal is Rs. 2,62,790/-.In Criminal Revision No. 174/94, the period of embezzlement is 1.1.84 to 31.12.84 and the amount embezzled by Sohan Lal is 1,71,097.30.In Criminal Revision No. 176/94, the period of embezzlement is 1.1.85 to 31.12.85 and the amount embezzled by Booking-Clerk Sohan Lal is Rs. 2,74,946.50.In revision No. 178/94 the period of embezzlement is 1.1.87 to 12.6.87 and the amount embezzled by Sohan Lal, Booking Clerk is Rs. 40,697.50. 4. The charge framed against the petitioner in all the cases is under section-409 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and they are similar in nature. 2,74,946.50.In revision No. 178/94 the period of embezzlement is 1.1.87 to 12.6.87 and the amount embezzled by Sohan Lal, Booking Clerk is Rs. 40,697.50. 4. The charge framed against the petitioner in all the cases is under section-409 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and they are similar in nature. For sake of convenience the charge framed against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 186/89 (Civil Revision Petition No. 178/94) is reproduced as reproduced as under : " fd vius fnukad 1-1-87 ls 12-6-87 ds e/; LVksj dhij dh gSfl;r ls fuxe esa dk;Zjr Fks o vkidk ;g nkf;Ro Fkk fd vki cqfdax DydZ lksguyky dh LVksd iaftdk mls LVksj ls tkjh fd;s x;s fVfdVksa ds pkyku o miyC/k fVfdVksa dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu fd; tk;s tks fu;ekuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k o bl vksehus'ku (sic) ls lksguyky esa U;Lr fd;s x;s fVfdVksa dk fcuk fu;ekuqlkj bUnzkt fd;s fodz; djrs gq, o NksVs Mh0,l0,0 dh fofHkUu izfr;ksa esa vUrj j[krs gq, U;Lr fVfdVksa dh fcdzh esa ls izkIr /kujkf'k :i;s 40679-30@& :i;s dh jkf'k dk xcu fd;k tkuk QsflfyVsM gqvk tks vcsVesUV dh rkjhQ esa vkrk gS o Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 409 lifBr /kkjk 109 esa n.Muh; vijk/k gS o esjs izlaKku esa gSA " 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per the case of prosecution there was some omission on the part of petitioner, who was Store Clerk at the relevant time, with no further allegation, less to say any evidence, that he provided any aid in commission of the offence. It was also contended that regular appointed auditors of the Corporation make internal audit of stock register and other documents of the booking-clerks and they are duty bound to do so. Counsel contended that as per the procedure adopted for issuance of tickets, the Booking-Clerk used to submit his demand/requirement of tickets before the concerned officer of the Depot and on his orders tickets were issued by the Store Clerk. The learned counsel contended that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he did not physically verify entries at the back of the challans which were returned by the Clerk and by this omission he aided commission of the offence. 6. The learned counsel contended that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he did not physically verify entries at the back of the challans which were returned by the Clerk and by this omission he aided commission of the offence. 6. It may be stated here that the evidence recorded during investigation does not show that as a Store Clerk the petitioner was required to verify or check the stock register or tickets of the Booking Clerk. It was also not his duty to check as to whether the sale amount of tickets was deposited by the clerk concerned or not. The Corporation has its own machinery to make regular internal checking and auditing by its Accountants/Junior Accountants of the Revenue Branch. The only act done by the petitioner was that he issued tickets to Sohan Lal- Booking Clerk as per orders of the Officer of Depot. As per procedure, four copies of challans were prepared at the time of issuance of tickets, out of which two were issued to the Booking Clerk and he used to return one copy of challan, after taking entry on its back of the page of stock register where the receipt of tickets was entered. It is alleged that the petitioner did not check this entry before issuance of tickets. There is no allegation or evidence on record that this omission on part of the petitioner was intentional to facilitate commission of the crime by co-accused Sohan Lal, who was working as Booking Clerk at the relevant time. 7. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment as under : "107-Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a 'thing' who First Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly Engages with one or more other, person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing or; Thirdly Intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." Taking the accusation and evidence on their face value the case against the petitioner does not fall either, in first or second clause of Section 107 I.P.C. For application of the third clause, the aid by an act or illegal omission should be intentional. The law is well settled on this score that mere giving an aid unintentionally will not make the act as an abetment of offence, if the person who gave the aid by omission did not know that an offence was being committed or contemplated. There should be intention to aid an offence or to facilitate the commission of an offence. In the absence of this ingredient no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner. Though, it may be a case for departmental inquiry but in no case a criminal liability can be fastened on him. The supervisory functions of the petitioner did not include checking of a stock register of the booking clerk and of the fact whether the sale amount of tickets was deposited by him or not. 8. Thus, in my view, the learned Magistrate committed an error in framing charge against the petitioner in absence of any material on record to show that the petitioner intentionally aided or facilitated the commission of the offence.Consequently, all the petitions are allowed. The charge framed in all the cases is hereby quashed. *******