Honble DALELA, J. – Learned counsel for the appellant has stated at bar that he does not press the revision petition on behalf of accused peti- petitioner No. 2 Madhu Singh and that he would only press the revision petition on behalf of accused petitioner No.1 Hari Singh. (2). So far as the accused petitioner No. 1 Hari Singh is concerned, the charge for the offences under secs. 436 and 435 IPC and Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, has been framed against him. Against this framing of charge, this revision has been preferred. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case. (4). According to the prosecution, the accused petitioners Hari Singh and Madhu Singh set fire in the residence of Hem Singh in which certain property including he calf, was burnt. I have gone through the entire evidence recorded under sec. 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Agency and upon perusal thereof, it is evident that the fire was set by Madhu Singh and not by Hari Singh. In the supplementary statement, PW Dakh Kanwar w/o Hem Singh, who is an eye witness according to the prosecution, has stated that when the fire was set by Madhu Singh the accused Hari Singh was standing at his own residence. P.W. Prem Singh, who is also an eye witness has stated that when the fire was set by Madhu Singh, accused petitioner Hari Singh was only standing and he did nothing. The witness Hukam Kanwar has also stated that when the fire was set by Madhu Singh the petitioner Hari Singh was standing at his residence. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that the fire was set by Hari Singh or he had a hand in setting the fire. Thus, from the prosecution evidence recorded under sec. 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that Hari Singh did not set the fire and no witness has attributed any overt act to him towards the commission of the alleged crime. In my opinion, therefore, no prima facie case for the offences under secs. 436 and 435 IPC and under sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act is made out against the accused petitioner No.1 Hari Singh and, as such, the charge framed against him deserves to be quashed and he deserves to be discharged. (5). In my opinion, therefore, no prima facie case for the offences under secs. 436 and 435 IPC and under sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act is made out against the accused petitioner No.1 Hari Singh and, as such, the charge framed against him deserves to be quashed and he deserves to be discharged. (5). In the result, the revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner No. 2 Madhu Singh is hereby, dismissed as not pressed. The revision of petitioner No.1 Hari Singh is allowed and the charge for the offences under secs.436 and 435 IPC and under Sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act framed against him by the learned trial court, is hereby quashed and he is discharged from the abovesaid offences.