JUDGMENT 1. - These five revisions are being disposed of by this common order as they are filed by petitioner-Mahesh Vyas and relate to different charge-sheets against him in which charges have been framed on 22.1.1999 in relation to different demand letters which were forged and on the basis of which he supplied goods from the store of Railways. His involvement for offences under sections 467, 471, 409 r/w 120-B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been assailed by these revisions. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for CBI. 3. Briefly stated, petitioner along with others was working as Sotre Keeper in the Northern Railway, Stores Department, Jodhpur. His work was to issue material on requisition being made to him by various departments of the Railway. Case of the prosecution was that another accused-Subhash Chandra who was working as a Material Chaser in the B.R.I. Officer of the Northern Railway, Jodhpur used to approach the Stores Department with requisitions for various materials from time to time. He was receiving material from the stores for last about 8-10 years before the matter was detected. Subhash was fully known to the petitioner and other employees working in the stores department. It was alleged that said Subhash Chandra made mutilation and alterations in the requisitions made by the B.R.I. He received material from time to time. He by making alterations in the original requisition forms increased the quantity required. There were cuttings and over-writings in some of the requisitions and this way forgery was committed by using forged documents and by receiving/supplying material and misappropriation thereof. The petitioner is charged by virtue of Section 120-B IPC alleging that he was in conspiracy with Subhash and other accused persons. CBI in all submitted five charge-sheets regarding different requisitions against him and in all of them charges have been framed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that involvement of petitioner is not at all made out even prima facie as there was not an iota of evidence against him. His job was simply to supply material on requisition made by various other departments and it was not a part of his duty to see whether the material after being received by carrier was misappropriated. His job was simply to supply material on requisition made by various other departments and it was not a part of his duty to see whether the material after being received by carrier was misappropriated. Counsel contended that there is no evidence that mutilations in the requisitions were made by the petitioner; and there is no evidence to suggest that there was any prior meeting of minds between the petitioner and the carriers. The petitioner delivered material after obtaining proper receipts to identified persons on the basis of proper requisitions. Of course some of the requisitions were directly presented to the petitioner without first being presented to the receipt section and these requisitions had certain corrections in them. Counsel submitted that this evidence was not sufficient to frame charge against the accused-petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for CBI Mr. S.R. Dave submitted that the charge can be framed on grave suspicion. According to him there is positive evidence that the petitioner issued material on the requisitions which were forged and his involvement cannot be said to be without basis. He submitted that the learned Additional Special Judge, after examining each and every part of evidence framed charges against the petitioner. 6. I have read the order of learned Special Judge and gone through the papers submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner which relate to different charge-sheet. 7. The law is that a charge can be framed even on grave suspicion. The accusing finger points out towards the petitioner. From the evidence it appears prima facie that the requisitions were forged and even then petitioner issued material on their basis. After having gone through the documents and the order of learned Special Judge, I find that the involvement of the petitioner at this stage cannot be said to be without basis. 8. Consequently, there is no force in these revision petitions and they are hereby dismissed. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on each file.Petition dismissed. *******