JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.:- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.3.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge (Forest) Shimla in case No.30-S/7 of 1995 whereby, a charge under Sections 420,467,468,471,218,120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Rules 11/20 and 18/20 of the H.P. Forests Produce Transit (Land Routes), Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), has been ordered to be framed. Charges have been ordered to be framed against other co-accused also. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 54/84, dated 23.12.1984, the investigating agency after collecting the relevant material came to the conclusion that the accused and his accomplices had indulged in the acts of cheating, forgery, manipulation of records, corrupt practice and illicit transportation of timber, therefore, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 379,420,467,468,471,218 and 120-B of the Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Act. After hearing the parties, learned trial Judge by the impugned order directed framing of the charge against the accused-petitioner as aforesaid. Feeling aggrieved, the accused-petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. I had heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State and have also gone through the records. 4. The precise allegations against the accused-petitioner as in the charge-sheet are that he was posted as Station Master, Railway Station, Summer Hill from January 1979 till August, 1983 and had retired from service in the year 1986. M/s. Him Giri and Co. Marog which was dealing in felling of trees, conversion and exporting of timber had secured permit No.12/82-83, dated 9.6.1982 for export of 3963 scants of timber to Yamunanagar via summer Hill. Permit No. 13/82-83 was issued for transportation of timber i.e. 2983 scants by the Forest Department in favour M/s. Dun Forest Co., Dehradun where under the timber was permitted to be exported to Mantruwala. Misusing the aforesaid permits, instead of 3963 scants as permitted to be exported vide permit No. 12/82-83, 4003 scants were booked and exported from Summer Hill Railway Station to Railway Station, Jagadhari. This was done by the accused in conspiracy with M/s. Him Giri and Co. Misusing the aforesaid permits, instead of 3963 scants as permitted to be exported vide permit No. 12/82-83, 4003 scants were booked and exported from Summer Hill Railway Station to Railway Station, Jagadhari. This was done by the accused in conspiracy with M/s. Him Giri and Co. He had assisted in. the illicit transportation of the timber by not mentioning the number of the relevant permit in the Rs. and by omitting to give the exact number of scants exported through rail in the Rs. It is further alleged that the accused did so in conspiracy with the co-accused and by misuse of his official powers obtained pecuniary advantage to himself and M/s. Him Giri and Co. 5. It was contended by the learned for the accused that there is no material on the record to proceed against the accused for the commission of the offences for which he has been ordered to be charged. The material relied upon by the prosecution has been misread and mis-understood by the learned trial Judge who has arrived at a conclusion which is not permissible on the basis of the available material. 6. In view of the allegations against the accused, the sum and substance whereof has already been set out hereto-fore and the contentions raised for the accused, it has to be examined as to whether the material on record prima facie substantiates the allegations against the accused and whether allegations so made constitute the grounds to proceed against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,218.and 120-B of the Code, Section 5(2) of the Act and Rules 11/20 and 18/20 of the Rules. 7. Section 420 of the Code reads as follows:- “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to se\en years, and shall also be liable to fine." 8. It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that cheating is one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code. It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that cheating is one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the Code which reads as follows: "415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "Cheat". 9. It is apparent from the aforesaid definition of chearing that an act to amount to cheating must be an act of deceiving any person and fraudulently and dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or the inducement to the person deceived must be to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not deceived. 10. Even if the allegations as made are admitted to be correct, evidently the element of deceiving any person so as to deliver any property or to consent for retention of any property pr inducement to do or omit to do anything by anyone who would not have done or would not have omitted to do such thing if he was not so deceived are altogether missing. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there are no reasons to proceed against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code. 11. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there are no reasons to proceed against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Code. 11. Section 467 of the Code reads as follows: "Forgery of valuable security, will etc- Whoever gorges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make, or transfer any valuable security or to receive principal, interest or dividends thereon or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also liable to fine." 12. It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that only a person who forges any of the documents as specified therein shall be liable to be punished there under. None of such documents is alleged to have been forged by the accused. Therefore, there are no grounds to proceed against the accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Code. 13. Section 468 of the Code reads as follows: "468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years, and shall also be liable to fine." 14. In view of the aforesaid provisions to constitute an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Code, the alleged forgery must be shown to have been committed with the intention that the forged document will be used for the purpose of cheating. Even, as per the allegations the receipts issued by the accused cannot be said to be forged for the purpose of cheating. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged the involvement of the accused in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Code is also not made out. 15. Section 471 of the Code reads as follows: "471. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as alleged the involvement of the accused in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 468 of the Code is also not made out. 15. Section 471 of the Code reads as follows: "471. Using as genuine a forged document.-Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document". 16. In view of the aforesaid provisions one of the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Code is fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document as genuine. A forged document will be a document falsely made wholly or in part by forgery. 17. Section 464 of the code defines the expression "making a false document" as follows:- "464. Making a false document. - A person is said to make a false document-First. - Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly.- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly. - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration." 18. - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration." 18. In view of the aforesaid definition, to constitute an act of "making a false document" the essential ingredients amongst others are the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part thereof was made, signed, sealed or executed by or with the authority of a person competent to do so whereas in fact it was not so made, signed, sealed or executed to the knowledge of the person who dishonestly or fraudulently intends to cause it to be believed as genuine, or the document must be altered as a whole or in any material part thereof without lawful authority and dishonestly or fraudulently after it has been made/executed by the executant or the document must be gdt dishonestly or fraudulently signed, sealed, executed or altered from a person of unsound mind or under intoxication or so deceived that he did not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 19. In the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, none of the aforesaid ingredients are available in the allegations against the accused, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 471 of the Code and the accused cannot be proceeded against for the commission of the said offence. 20. A perusal of the record, however, reveals that the acts and omissions imputed to the accused are prima facie supportable on the basis of the material on record. In view of the copies of various Challans placed on record, it is prima facie borne out that against permit No. 12/82-83 valid for transportation of 3963 scants of timber to Yamuna Nagar via Summer Hill much more scants were transported to summer Hill. The Rs. placed on the record which were issued by the officials of the Railways including the accused show that more than the permitted number of scants were transported from Summer Hill to Yamuna Nagar against the aforesaid permit during its initial period of validity and the extended period of validity. The Rs. placed on the record which were issued by the officials of the Railways including the accused show that more than the permitted number of scants were transported from Summer Hill to Yamuna Nagar against the aforesaid permit during its initial period of validity and the extended period of validity. In some of such Rs. the number of scants transported there under is not mentioned. This happened despite the fact that a copy of the said permit was endorsed to the accused in his official capacity. Thus, the accused is prima facie . Shown to have conspired with the co-accused as alleged and pursuant to such conspiracy framed false record to facilitate illicit transportation of timber and to save it from being seized as illicitly transported timber. Thus, there are grounds to proceed against him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 218 and 120-B of the Code and Rules 11 and 18 read with Rule 20 of the Rules. 21. In the facts and circumstances supportable by the material on record, it is prima facie evident that the accused committed the imputed acts and omissions with a view to obtain pecuniary advantage to himself and his co-conspirators by illegal means and is thus liable to be proceeded against for the commission of an offence under Section 5(2) of the Act. 22. In view of the above discussion and reasons, there are no grounds to proceed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468, and 471 of the Code and to this extent, the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set-aside. However, there are grounds to proceed against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 218 and 120-B of the code, Section 5(2) of the Act and rules 11 and 12 read with Rule 20 of the Rules. 23. As a result, the impugned order is partly liable to be set-aside and is set-aside to the extent it directs framing of charge against the accused under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of the Code. However, the rest of the impugned order directing framing of charge against the accused under Sections 218 and 120-B of the code, Section 5(2) of the Act and rules 11/20 and 18/20 of the Rules, is affirmed. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 24. However, the rest of the impugned order directing framing of charge against the accused under Sections 218 and 120-B of the code, Section 5(2) of the Act and rules 11/20 and 18/20 of the Rules, is affirmed. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 24. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.1.2000. Records of the trial Court be returned forthwith. -