Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. The present Criminal Revision has been filed by Suvinder Kaur @ Shavinder Kaur against the order dated 17.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurkshetra, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1990. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the said order dated 17.7.1990 and restoring the order dated 31.3.1989 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Narwana, whereby she had been discharged. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that Jai Pal President, Yuva Sangh, Kalayat, District Jind, made an application dated 16.7.1987 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Hisar, regarding embezzlement of lakhs of rupees in the office of the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O. for short), Kalayat. In his application the complainant submitted that officials of the C.D.P.O. had in connivance with Statistical Assistant made lakhs of rupees. The details of which are given therein. It is stated that these officials issued bogus experience certificates regarding experience of Anganwadi Workers. Instances of some of the girls, who were made to pay amounts ranging Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- have been given. It is stated that Neelam daughter of Amrit Lal, who was posted as J.B.T. teacher at Simla, Tehsil Narwana paid Rs. 15,000/-, whereas this girl never worked as Anganwadi worker. In this manner, her experience certificate was forged showing her to be having three years experience. Similarly, Shashi Prabha wife of Subhash Chander, who was posted as JBT teacher at Government Nursery School in the city (opposite Govt. Girls School), paid Rs. 15,000/-. She worked as Anganwadi worker in village Dhakal for one year but was issued forged certificate in the year 1985 wrongly showing her to be having three years experience. This was alleged to have been done by accepting money. Similarly, reference has been made to the case of one Kanta Girdhar, who was working as J.B.T. teacher in village Kheri Kalasar (Kalayat Block), whereas she never worked as Anganwadi worker. However, after accepting Rs. 15,000/- from her Statistical Assistant Kalayat issued her a certificate of three years experience as Anganwadi worker. This certificate was also forged one and was issued in the year 1985. These were alleged to be fraud on the Government. However, after accepting Rs. 15,000/- from her Statistical Assistant Kalayat issued her a certificate of three years experience as Anganwadi worker. This certificate was also forged one and was issued in the year 1985. These were alleged to be fraud on the Government. It was alleged by the complainant that as per the Rules any girl who has worked an Anganwadi Worker for three years at any place can appear in the J.B.T. examination and not otherwise. It is indicated in the application that there were about 35 cases of this type, of which officials of Child Development Office (C.D.P.O.) Kalyat, Tehsil Narwana, have embezzled lakhs of rupees by issuing forged certificates in the year 1985. They had only given the instances of three girls. Their cases can be verified on enquiry. 3. It is on the basis of this application that case FIR No. dated 23.3.1988 was registered at Police Station Kalayat, District Jind, for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The copy of the FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. 4. The police filed challan in the case in the Court of the learned trial magistrate who after examining the material on record discharged the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 21.3.1989. However, in a revision filed by the State, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kurukshetra vide his order dated 17.7.1990 set aside the aforesaid order of the learned trial Magistrate and directed him to proceed in accordance with the observations contained therein. 5. Against the order dated 17.7.1990 the present Revision Petition has been filed. This Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings before the learned trial Court vide order dated 4.9.1990. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that prior to the registration of the FIR, the S.D.O. (Civil) Narwana, had deputed Ram Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector IInd Grade, to hold an enquiry into the matter. The Naib Tehsildar submitted a report dated 18.9.1997 Annexure P-2. In his report he found that the record with regard to Shashi Prabha had been forwarded to Director Social Welfare Department, Chandigarh. In the case of Neelam Rani, it was observed that the certificate produced by her bore the signatures of the C.D.P.O. Kalayat i.e. the present petitioner. The Naib Tehsildar submitted a report dated 18.9.1997 Annexure P-2. In his report he found that the record with regard to Shashi Prabha had been forwarded to Director Social Welfare Department, Chandigarh. In the case of Neelam Rani, it was observed that the certificate produced by her bore the signatures of the C.D.P.O. Kalayat i.e. the present petitioner. However, it was only a photostat copy and that original certificate was required to be examined. Neelam Rani was asked to produce the original certificate. In response she submitted an affidavit that her original certificate has been forwarded to the D.P.I. Chandigarh. Smt. Kanta Girdhar did not appear. Ultimately a final report dated 12.1.1988 Annexure P-3 was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Kalayat. In this report, he found that only Neelam Rani was guilty as she did not produce the original certificate which was said to contain the signature of the petitioner being the C.D.P.O., Kalayat. He also indicated that he had written to the D.P.I. (Examination Branch, Office), Chandigarh, with regard to the original certificate furnished by Neelam Rani. However, the Director School Education Board, Haryana, wrote that Neelam had not submitted the original certificate issued by the C.D.P.O., Kalayat, and had submitted only a photocopy. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the absence of the original certificate no inference of any criminal liability could be fastened on the petitioner that the certificate submitted by Neelam Rani indeed contained the signatures of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, he submits that the order of discharge dated 21.3.1989 passed by the learned trial Court, is just and equitable. 8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has contended that at the time of framing of charge only prima facie material is to be seen and it is not to be seen whether the guilt of the accused can be established from the material on record. 9. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is not in dispute that the original certificate which is stated to contain the signatures of the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as C.D.P.O. Kalayat is not on the record of the challan. Only a photostat copy of the same has been placed on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the original certificate which is stated to contain the signatures of the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as C.D.P.O. Kalayat is not on the record of the challan. Only a photostat copy of the same has been placed on record. The Naib Tehsildar, Kalayat, conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and he also made efforts to secure the original copy of the certificate which is reported to have been issued under the signatures of the petitioner. He recorded the statement of Hari Parkash Statistical Assistant, in the office of C.D.P.O. Kalayat, on 2.9.1987. Copy of the said statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. Shri Hari Parkash stated that the certificate pertaining to Neelam Rani bears his initials and the signature of the petitioner but this was only a photostat copy. He further states that the certificate issued to Shashi Prabha bears his signatures and those of the petitioner, which he admits to be correct. 11. From the material on record, it is difficult to say that from the reading of the photostat copy of the certificate, the signatures of the petitioner on the same could be proved. The photostat copy of the document is only a secondary piece of evidence. In order to prove the same, the existence of the primary evidence i.e. the original certificate which is alleged to contain the signatures of the petitioner has to be shown. Chapter V of the Indian Evidence Act relates to documentary evidence. Primary evidence means the documents itself produced for inspection of the Court. The secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act may be given in the cases enumerated therein. The existence of the original document has not been shown to exist. In fact the same has not even been recovered from the accused Neelam Rani or from the files of the Director Public Instructions during investigation by the police and despite efforts made by the Naib Tehsildar. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult to establish that the petitioner had indeed signed the certificate issued to Neelam Rani. 12. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult to establish that the petitioner had indeed signed the certificate issued to Neelam Rani. 12. In the case of Ashok Chaturvedi and others v. Shitul H. Chanchani and another, 1998(3) RCR(Crl.) 801 (SC) : (1998)7 SCC 698, the appellants were arrayed as accused along with others in a complaint alleging offences committed by the appellants under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of transfer of shares effected by Flex Engineering Ltd. a public limited company. The learned Magistrate after examining the complaint and other witnesses took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directed issuance of process against the accused/appellants, who moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cognizance, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint even being accepted on their face value, no offence can be said to have been made out against them. The High Court rejected the prayer of the appellants. The Honble Supreme Court examined the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the complainant as also two other witnesses made on oath before the Magistrate and opined that necessary ingredients of any offences were not made out so far as the appellants are concerned. It was held that the petition of the complainant was vague one and excepting the bald allegation that the shares of the complainant had been transferred on forged signatures, nothing further has been stated that there was not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these appellants therein were involved in the so-called allegation of forgery. After coming to the such conclusion, it was held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue even where the allegations in the complaint/petition do not make out any offence would tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court. 13. In the case in hand also where the original certificate alleged to be containing the signatures of the petitioner has not been traced, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner. Besides, the occurrence in the case relates to the year 1985 and the petitioner has undergone this litigation for all these years. Besides, the occurrence in the case relates to the year 1985 and the petitioner has undergone this litigation for all these years. The original of the certificate is not shown to be in existence and yet the liability is sought to be fastened only on the basis of the photostat copy of the certificate. The benefit of the certificate has been taken by Neelam Rani. It is not the case of the State even that any money or consideration was passed on to the petitioner for the issuance of the said certificate. The challan that has been presented is for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate found it to be a case of an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. only and that too against Neelam Rani. He discharged the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, vide his impugned order dated 17.7.1990 set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate, and held that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is not out of place to also take into account that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that Hari Parkash, the then Statistical Assistant who was the prime suspect and who created the certificate in dispute in connivance with the petitioner and Neelam daughter of Amrit Lal, has been left by the investigating officer. The position thus is that Hari Parkash, the then Statistical Assistant was not challaned by the police and he has been found to be one of the prime suspects by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge. In any case as I have already observed above, in the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner as the original certificate which is alleged to have been given or forged is not traceable. From the photocopy of the same no criminal liability, in the circumstances of the case, can be fastened on the petitioner. The signatures on the photostat copy of a certificate can be managed and manipulated by taking out copies several times and them compiling the certificate containing the signatures by joining the reproduction of the various documents in a single form. The signatures on the photostat copy of a certificate can be managed and manipulated by taking out copies several times and them compiling the certificate containing the signatures by joining the reproduction of the various documents in a single form. Besides, in view of the fact that the occurrence relates to the year 1985, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal prosecution. Consequently, the order dated 17.7.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, is set aside and the order dated 21.3.1989 of the learned trial Magistrate is restored. 14. The net result is that the petitioner stands discharged from the case of F.I.R. No. 104 dated 23.3.1988 registered at Police Station Kalayat.