JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Shri S.R. Bajwa the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pratap Singh the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and carefully per the relevant record. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that in pursuance of the advertisement published in the news paper the petitioner applied tar the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police in the office of the Superintendent of Police Sikar. At the time of appointment he submitted the relevant documents including his Secondary School Leaving Certificate as proof of his age. The allegation against the petitioner was of having made interpolation in his Transfer Certificate which he had submitted at the time of appointment by interpolating his date of birth as 3.1.1964 instead of 3.1.1961 and continued in service till 6.4.1988 and derived undue benefit of extension in service by three years. 3. On 6.4.88. he was discharged from service of the District Police Sikar when it was revealed that he had submitted a false certificate by interpolating the date of birth in his School leaving Certificate as 3.1.1964 instead of 3.1.61. The S.P. Sikar directed the matter to be investigated by the S.H.O. kotwall, who submitted his report after thorough investigation and found that his date of birth was interpolated in the certificate and since the application submitted by the petitioner was in his own hand writing, wherein he had interpolated his date of birth as 3.1.1964 instead of 3.1.1961 There was no reason to disbelieve the same on the ground that the said application was prepared in his own hand writing and consequently he was discharged from service. 4. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner is stated that before taking any prima facie view regarding the alleged forgery could be drawn against the petitioner by the department, a proper care should have been taken by the prosecution to see that by invocation of wrong provisions of law i.e. Section 468 read with Section 471 CrP.C., the service of the petitioner could not have been terminated. Section 468 of the IPC deals with the offence of forgery while Section 471 defines the user of forged document as genuine, which the accused knows or has reason to believe to be forged document. Section 192 read with 198 is the correct provision which should have been applied. Section 468 of the IPC deals with the offence of forgery while Section 471 defines the user of forged document as genuine, which the accused knows or has reason to believe to be forged document. Section 192 read with 198 is the correct provision which should have been applied. In my view Section 192 read with Section 198 should have been applied in the facts and circumstances of the case.Section 192 stipulates as under : "192. Fabricating false evidence - Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence". Section 198 stipulates as under : "198. Using as true a certificate known to be false-Whoever, corruptly uses or attempts to use and such certificate, as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence." 5. Prima facie I am of the view that the trial court has not correctly and instead of framing charge for offence under section 467 r/w 468 IPC, the charge should have been framed for the offences under section 192 r/w 198 IPC and thereafter the trial should have been conducted by the court. I am further of the view that complainant Superintendent of Police, Sikar has neither been cited as prosecution witness nor his statement has been recorded by the trial court. The trial court should have taken judicial notice of this fact that neither the charge has been correctly framed as per the provisions of law nor the relevant witnesses have been examined after framing of the charge. 6. The trial court should have taken judicial notice of this fact that neither the charge has been correctly framed as per the provisions of law nor the relevant witnesses have been examined after framing of the charge. 6. As a result of the above discussion, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, I am of the view that a patent error of jurisdiction has occurred in both the impugned orders i.e. the order of the trial court dated 28.8.97 as well as the revisional order dated 3.2.91 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar and are accordingly quashed and set-aside with the direction to the trial court that the prosecution shall examine the relevant witnesses, who have earlier not been examined and de novo trial be initiated after submission of fresh charge-sheet in accordance with law. 7. The bail order passed today in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47/99 shall stand automatically vacated since main revision petition No. 70/99 has been allowed and de-novo trial has been directed against the accused. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 12.4.1999 for facing trial de-novo in accordance with law and he shall be at liberty to move fresh bail application to the trial court in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******