ORDER S.L. Jain, J. This is a revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (No. 2 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') against the order dated 16-10-2001 passed by JMFC, Budhar, District Shahdol, in Criminal Case No. 366/96 whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioners for offences punishable under sections 198, 469,471, Indian Penal Code read with section 120B thereof. The facts leading to this revision petition are that a charge sheet u/s 173(2) of the Code was filed by the police of P.S. Amlai, District Shahdol, for offences punishable under sections418,420, 465, 467, 468,471, 114, 198, 203 and 120B, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners along with some other persons including Swapan Kumar Mitra (since discharged), who, at the relevant time was posted as General Manager (hereinafter referred to as 'GM'). South Eastern Coalfields, Sohagpur, Area Dhanpuri, District Shahdol. The learned trial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners as above. The petitioners were all working in different capacities on various post in South Eastern Coalfields, Ltd. Sanction for selecting 100 ITI apprentices was received from the headquarters at Bilaspur. It was also directed by the headquarter that the apprentices should be selected after calling names of suitable candidates from the office of Employment Officer, Budhar. The apprentices were to be given training and were to be offered employment after completion of the training. As per the direction a requisition was sent to the Employment Officer, Budhar by General Manager, Swapan Kumar Mitra. The eligibility criterion for the candidates was fixed as under: (1) Candidates should be Matriculate with ITI Certificate in different trades of mechanical Fitter and Electrician. (2) Candidates should be between 18 to 30 years of age in case of General Candidates and upto 35 years in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. (3) Duration of training was for one year only. (4) During training period apprentices would be paid stipend of Rs. 460/- per month. Thereafter, a list of 598 candidates was received from the office of Employment Officer, Budhar. The GM constituted a Selection Committee consisting of the following members: (1) Shri T.C. Jethi, Dy. (3) Duration of training was for one year only. (4) During training period apprentices would be paid stipend of Rs. 460/- per month. Thereafter, a list of 598 candidates was received from the office of Employment Officer, Budhar. The GM constituted a Selection Committee consisting of the following members: (1) Shri T.C. Jethi, Dy. General Manager, Sohagpur Area, as Chairman; (2) Shri B.B. Singh, Additional Chief Personnel Manager, Sohagpur Area, as Secretary; (3) Shri Dalbeer Singh, S.B. (E and M), Sohagpur, as Member; (4) Shri A.N. Ram, F.M., Sohagpur, as Member; (5) Shri R.C. Yadav, Personnel Manager (MP), as Member; (6) Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Personnel Manager (IR and A), Sohagpur, as Member; (7) Shri M.L. Dwivedi, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohagpur, as Member; and (8) Shri R.N. Shukla, Employment Officer, Employment Exchange, Budhar, as Member. On 7-1-1995, Shri T.C. Jethi, Dy. G.M. expressed his inability to attend the interview due to exigencies of work and requested the G.M. to make some alternative arrangement. On the body of this letter, the G.M. endorsed following remark: Agreed ACPM (Sohagpur) shall be the Chairman and the Personnel Manager (IR and A), as Member Secretary. The aforesaid endorsement was communicated to the committee members. The members agreed to proceed with the selection process as most of the candidates called for the interview had reached the place of selection. Pursuant to the endorsement petitioner B.B. Singh acted as Chairman while A.K. Shrivastava acted as Member Secretary. The date for interview was fixed for 7th/8th November, 1995 in consultation with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sohagpur, who was appointed as a State Government Nominee. The paper for the written test was cyclostyled in the presence of the committee members and was distributed in their presence to the candidates. The Committee finalised the following norms for the selection: (1) Marks for Written Test :50 (2) Marks for Interview and Tade Test :50 Total :100 (3) Minimum Qualifying marks for General Candidates. :60 (4) Minimum Qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates. :50 (5) Duration for Written Test : 1-1/2 Hours After completion of the Written Test and Trade Test, all the candidates were interviewed and subsequently, selection list of successful candidates was prepared. The recommendations were submitted to GM who approved the same on 10-11-1995 and directed petitioner No. 1 to issue appointment letters. Accordingly, the appointment letters were sent to all the candidates through registered post. The recommendations were submitted to GM who approved the same on 10-11-1995 and directed petitioner No. 1 to issue appointment letters. Accordingly, the appointment letters were sent to all the candidates through registered post. The appointment was subject to following conditions: (1) Appointment was subject to verification of antecedents and certificates produced by the candidates and in case of any adverse report, the appointment was to be terminated without showing any reason; (2) The offer of appointment was subject to medical fitness; (3) That the appointment was on a consolidated stipend of Rs. 460.00 per month for a period of one year; and (4) It was specifically mentioned in the appointment order that on completion of training period, the appointment will automatically come to an end without any liability whatsoever on the part of the company and it was specifically mentioned that on the completion of the training period, the company was not bound to offer any appointment to any individual concerned. Subsequently, complaints were received in respect of two candidates namely Hriday Narayan Yadav and Jai Prakash Gupta regarding genuineness of their ITI certificates, therefore, their appointment was cancelled. One Mohd. Shamim Khan submitted a report to Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Shahdol, on 16-11-1996 alleging that the candidates submitted bogus ITI certificates and bogus mark-sheets, therefore, they should be punished. The police investigated into the matter and came to the conclusion that many candidates had submitted false ITI certificates and bogus mark-sheets and as such a charge-sheet was filed against 27 candidates who submitted forged certificates and mark-sheets and also prosecuted the present petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners appears to be that they had selected the candidates on the basis of false certificates and mark-sheets. During investigation, the police seized the question-papers set for the written test, answer books and the statements of marks awarded in the interview and the tabulation sheets. The police also recorded statements of Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Das, Suryakant Tripathi, Tarachand Jethi, N. Adhikari, Vishnu Ganesh Paranjpe, Mohd. Shamim Khan and R.N. Shukla u/s 161 of the Code and a challan was filed against the candidates who submitted the forged certificates and mark-sheets, the petitioners and Swapan Kumar Mitra, who was, however, discharged by the learned Magistrate. It is against this order that the petitioners have filed this revision. Shamim Khan and R.N. Shukla u/s 161 of the Code and a challan was filed against the candidates who submitted the forged certificates and mark-sheets, the petitioners and Swapan Kumar Mitra, who was, however, discharged by the learned Magistrate. It is against this order that the petitioners have filed this revision. I have heard Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Ku. Alka Pandya, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and perused the documents submitted with the revision petition. On perusal of the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Code and other materials on record, prima facie it appears that many candidates had submitted false ITI certificates and bogus mark-sheets. The allegations against the present petitioners appear to be that as members of Selection Committee they have selected the candidates on the basis of forged certificates and mark-sheets. There was no mechanism by which the Selection Committee could have judged that certificates and mark-sheets are forged or genuine. If the certificates of some of the candidates were found to be false, at the most their selection could have been cancelled and such candidates could have been prosecuted. It is not the allegation of the prosecution that the petitioners who were the members of the Selection Committee, did know that some of the candidates have submitted forged certificates or mark sheets. The names of the candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange also could not detect that the certificates and mark-sheets were forged. From the statement of Employment Officer, R.N. Shukla it appears that his griegvance was that representatives of the State Government were not given proper importance in selection of candidates, therefore, he refused to sign the selection list. His grievance, as per his statement u/s 161of the Code is also to the effect that his signatures were not obtained on the tabulation sheet. It is not the case of the prosecution that as per rules all the members of the committee were required to sign the tabulation sheet, therefore, merely because R.N. Shukla refused to sign the list, it cannot be inferred that there was any manipulation in the process of selection. Here, it is necessary to mention that M.S. Dwivedi, Sub Divisional Magistrate was also one of the members of the Selection Committee and he has signed the recommendations for selection of candidates. Here, it is necessary to mention that M.S. Dwivedi, Sub Divisional Magistrate was also one of the members of the Selection Committee and he has signed the recommendations for selection of candidates. Simply because Employment Officer refused to sign on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, it cannot be said that the Chairman and other members of the Committee committed any offence. Only the candidates who submitted forged certificates and mark-sheets are responsible for the offence u/s 198 Indian Penal Code and not the members of the Selection Committee. Similarly, for the offence of forgery it is necessary that a false document should be made with intent to cause damage or injury or with intent to commit fraud. There is no material whatsoever to suggest that the petitioners made any false document. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners knowingly used forged documents as genuine nor there is any material to suggest that the petitioners were party to the criminal conspiracy to commit an offence u/s 198/471, Indian Penal Code. It is alleged by Mohd. Shamim Khan that some of the petitioners accepted bribe of Rs. 35,000.00 to Rs. 40,000.00, but he has not said that any one has accepted the same in his presence. He is said to have learnt this fact only from others. Only on the basis of rumours it cannot be prima facie said that any one of the petitioners accepted the alleged bribe. Statement of Salim Khan u/s 161 of the Code clearly reveals that his statement is not based on his personal knowledge but on the information received by him. None of the persons who gave information to Salim Khan has been examined. Simply because Salim Khan informed petitioner Birendra Bahadur Singh that there is a rumour that lacs of rupees have been earned by him and his subordinates and Birendra Bahadur Singh instead of taking any action in the matter asked Salim Khan to leave his office, it cannot be inferred that there was some manipulation. There is no definite evidence of any manipulation in the examination. Some of the witnesses have stated that Mr. Jethi, who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee did not sign the recommendations. There is no definite evidence of any manipulation in the examination. Some of the witnesses have stated that Mr. Jethi, who was the Chairman of the Selection Committee did not sign the recommendations. From the material on record it is clear that T.C. Jethi expressed his inability to attend the interview due to exigency of work and requested General Manager, Sohagpur Area for making some alternative arrangement. On the request of T.C. Jethi, petitioner Birendra Bahadur, ACPM, Sohagpur was appointed as Chairman and A.K. Shrivastava, Personnel Manager (IRA) was appointed as member. This is how Birendra Bahadur Singh, ACPM acted as Chairman and A.K. Shrivastava acted as Secretary to the Committee. In this backdrop, simply because recommendations were not signed by T. C. Jethi who did not attend the interview, no suspicion should have been raised against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, has relied on Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, . It is not necessary to deal with these cases for the simple reason that it is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge a Court is required to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Judge, while considering the question of framing of the charge, has power to shift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test regarding determination of prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. While exercising the jurisdiction at the stage of framing of the charge, a Judge cannot merely act as a mouth piece of the prosecution but has to consider the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the Court. It is true that a Judge is not expected at the stage to make a roving enquiry in the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. The Court is required to evaluate the material and the documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court is required to evaluate the material and the documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. There is no material on record of this case to suggest that the petitioners committed any serious irregularity in the selection process. Even if there was some irregularity in the written examination or viva voce test, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under sections 120B, 198, 469 and 471 Indian Penal Code, therefore, no charge could have been framed against them. The main allegation against the petitioners is that some of the candidates who appeared before the Selection Committee submitted false certificates and mark-sheets and yet they have been selected. In the interview letter itself it was clearly mentioned that if the certificates etc. are found to be false, selection shall be terminated and in fact, when it was found that certain candidates submitted forged certificates and mark-sheets, not only their appointments were cancelled but they were also prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 120B, 467,471 and 198B, Indian Penal Code and charges have been framed against them. By no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be placed in the category of those persons who submitted forged certificates and mark-sheets. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Sub Divisional Officer (Police) was unhappy with the management of SECL for two reasons, firstly, because they were not willing to oblige him by providing vehicles and secondly, he was residing in one of the quarters of SECL and when he was requested to make the payment of telephone bill and rent of the quarter, he felt annoyed. At the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be seen, therefore, this contention is to be completely ignored. However, from the above discussion, it is clear that sufficient grounds were not there on record for framing charges against the petitioners. No legal evidence was available against them and the facts prima facie do not make out any offence against them at all. However, from the above discussion, it is clear that sufficient grounds were not there on record for framing charges against the petitioners. No legal evidence was available against them and the facts prima facie do not make out any offence against them at all. If the facts emerging from the documents produced by the prosecution are taken at their face value they do not disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the offences punishable under sections 120B, 198, 469 and 471, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners, therefore, the charge for these offences could not have been framed against them. In fact, the petitioners have not forged any document and they have not cheated anybody. As a matter of fact, the candidates who submitted false certificates and mark-sheets have cheated the Selection Committee. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed. The charges framed against the petitioners by the trial Court for offences punishable under sections 198,469, 471 and 120B, Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed and they stand discharged of these offences. The trial shall proceed against the remaining accused persons. Final Result : Allowed