JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mobile), Jodhpur dated 3.4.1998 by which he ordered to frame charge under Sections 420, 120-B IPC against the petitioner. He also framed the charge on 13.10.1998. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was the Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. It is alleged that Ranjeet Singh and Sumer Singh were friends. Ranjeet Singh was unemployed. Sumer Singh asked him to obtain loan from the bank where the petitioner was posted as Manager. Then Sumer Singh went to the bank and applied for loan in order to start the business of videography and photography. He obtained quotations of the cameras as well as other photographic articles. He completed formalities by putting his signatures. He went with Sumer Singh, it was further alleged that Sumer Singh and the Bank Manager went in a room and thereafter he was told that he may come later on after some time and by that time the loan would be sanctioned. Ranjeet Singh then met the petitioner who informed that the loan was not sanctioned. Then he contacted Sumer Singh who also told that the application for loan was rejected. 3. It was in April, 1995 that Ranjeet Singh received a notice from bank to deposit the instalments. Then he went to Sumer Singh and told that since he had not obtained any loan, the notice was not proper. Sumer Singh then kept silence and on insistence procrastinated. Ranjeet Singh concluded that there was something fishy. Then he inquired from the bank and came to know that it was Sumer Singh who put his signatures in order to obtain loan. Then he contacted Sumer Singh whose wife admitted that the amount was withdrawn by Sumer Singh as family needed money and that they would deposit the instalments. This transpired in presence of Udai Singh. Then Ranjeet Singh kept silence and did not take any action presuming that Sumer Singh would deposit the instalments. He again received a notice on 31.5.1996 from the bank. He went to Sumer Singh and his wife again. When they told that they would not deposit the instalments and in presence of Om Bhati they told him to do whatever he liked. He again received a notice on 31.5.1996 from the bank. He went to Sumer Singh and his wife again. When they told that they would not deposit the instalments and in presence of Om Bhati they told him to do whatever he liked. Thereafter he filed a complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur which was forwarded to police where FIR No. 222 under Sections 420, 406 IPC was registered at Mahamandir Police Station. After investigation police submitted challan against Dalpat Singh, Smt. Rajhans, Nemichand, Sumer Singh and the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Bank Manager but there is nothing on record that he was involved in some conspiracy or he forged, fabricated or in any way added, abetted or assisted in forging the signatures of Ranjeet Singh on any of the papers relating to loan. My attention was drawn to debit voucher of Rs. 50,000/- dated 17.11.1993 which bears the signature of Ranjeet Singh on its back on revenue stamp. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that' if any forgery might have been done, it may be other persons but not the petitioner. The petitioner was the Bank Manager and was doing his duty. He submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, Seamed Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge can be framed on strong suspicion. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor might be correct but there should be some ground to raise' suspicion of involvement of a person. 7. Responsibility of framing of charge is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. The Court has to arrive to a conclusion and its inference must be drawn whether there is a strong suspicion existing at the initial stage which may lead it to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed on offence. The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do any illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The prosecution must show that agreement was entered into and that there was a meeting of minds between two or more persons. The most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do any illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The prosecution must show that agreement was entered into and that there was a meeting of minds between two or more persons. Btymoiogically conspiracy means breathing together and two people cannot breathe together unless they put their heads together. By saying that the petitioner and Sumer Singh went into a room at the time when papers about loan were signed, does not mean that they had conspired to cheat the petitioner. The debit voucher also bears the signatures of the petitioners was never sent to a handwriting expert who would have said that it did not bear signature of Ranjeet Singh on its back or on the revenue stamp. For framing of a charge there must be existence of a prima-facie case on the basis of material on record, that offence is triable under Chapter XIX was a warrant case, that the competency of the Magistrate to try the offence against the accused and the power of the Magistrate to punish the accused adequately. In Satnam Moga & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 702 , these four ingredients were enumerated. Out of them three do exist but the fourth one i.e. the existence of a prima-facie case on the basis of material on record is missing. There is not on iota of evidence that the petitioner was at all involved in a conspiracy or at all cheated the complainant. Therefore, the order of framing of charge qua petitioner as well as charge itself deserve to be quashed. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the charge illegally framed against the petitioner is hereby quashed and he is discharged from the offences of Sections 120-B and 420 ID'"'Revision allowed. *******