JUDGMENT 1. - The abovenamed accused- petitioners namely, Guman Singh, Ravindra Nath Mathur and Upendra Dave have filed the above mentioned three revision petitions and they are being decided by this common judgment as they have been filed against the common order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur by which he framed charges against the accused-petitioners as under : Name of accused Charge u/s. Upendra Dave 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 r/w Sec. Ravindra Nath Mathur 120-B Indian Penal Code Guman Singh 119, 467 r/w Sec. 120-B Indian Penal Code 2. It may be stated here that there are some other accused persons in this case against whom charges have been framed by same order dated 28.8.1998, but they have not filed revision petitions against order dated 28.8.1998 before this Court so far. 3. The abovementioned three revision petitions arise in the following circumstances (i) That one Bagh Singh Rao, Additional Dist. Collector, Land Conversion, Jodhpur lodged a written report with the Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur on 3.5.1993 alleging inter alia that 48 pattas which were prepared in 48 files pertaining to village Sutla were found forged. (ii) On the basis of that report, a FIR No. 145/1993 was registered on 4.5.1993 for offences under sections 420, 467, 471, 474 and Section 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (iii) After usual investigation, the police first filed challan on 9.3.1995 against Upendra Dave (accused-petitioner), Babu Lal, Sahdeo Singh, Bhikham Chand and Takhat Singh for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and in the said charge-sheet it was further observed by the police that investigation under section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code was pending against Ravindra Nath Mathur (accused-petitioner), Prabhash Narayan Mathur and Guman Singh (accused-petitioner) and thereafter cognizance was taken against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and Section 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (iv) That on 28.11.1996 supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Ravindra Nath Mathur (accused-petitioner), Prabhash Narayan Mathur and Guman Singh (accused-petitioner) for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and Section 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (iv) That on 28.11.1996 supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Ravindra Nath Mathur (accused-petitioner), Prabhash Narayan Mathur and Guman Singh (accused-petitioner) for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and Section 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (v) That on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet, through order dated 23.10.1997, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Ravindra Nath Mathur (accused-petitioner), Prabhash Narayan Mathur and Guman Singh (accused- petitioner) for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 162 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (vi) That the learned Judicial Magistrate heard the arguments on charge as to whether any of the charges could be framed against any of the accused persons or not. (vii) That the learned Judicial Magistrate through order dated 28.8.1998 framed charges against the accused persons as stated above. (viii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.1998, Guman Singh, Ravindra Nath Mathur and Upendra Dave have filed the abovementioned three revision petitions. 4. Heard and perused the record.REVISION PETITION NO. 693/1998 FILED BY ACCUSED-PETITIONER- GUMAN SINGH 5. There is no dispute on the point that Guman Singh remained posted as SDO cum Land Conversion Officer from 18.9.1991 to 31.3.1992 and 10 pattas were issued on 20.3.1992 and 30 pattas were issued on 30.3.1992. 6. The case of prosecution was that these pattas bore signatures of accused-petitioner-Guman Singh, but FSL report revealed that in 48 files, signatures of Guman Singh, the then SDO, were not found on the disputed pattas. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate in his impugned order dated 28.8.1998 by which charges were framed against the accused- petitioner- Guman Singh for offence under sections 119 and 467 r/w Section 120- B Indian Penal Code, has observed : (i) That no doubt forged documents were not got prepared by the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh for any disputed file bore his signatures nor he had taken any decision on the disputed files, but since he was a public servant, it was his duty to check the criminal activities going on in his office. (ii) That so far as charge of conspiracy was concerned, since criminal activities were going on in his office, therefore, he was responsible for that and thus through order dated 28.8.1998 heordered to frame charges against the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh for offence under section 119 and Section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 8. (ii) That so far as charge of conspiracy was concerned, since criminal activities were going on in his office, therefore, he was responsible for that and thus through order dated 28.8.1998 heordered to frame charges against the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh for offence under section 119 and Section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 8. The order dated 28.8.1998 has been challenged by the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh on various grounds and the main contentions of the learned counsel for.the accused-petitioner- Guman Singh are as under:- (i) That so far as charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since no challan has been filed against him for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code and since the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code on the same day when the order dated 28.8.1998 was passed whereby charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh and thus, the charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code has been framed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence the order dated 28.8.1998 by which charge for offence u/s.119 Indian Penal Code was framed is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That when nothing was done by the accused-petitioner- Guman Singh and when the signatures of the accused-petitioner- Guman Singh were not found on the disputed pattas, no case for offence under sections 467 and 120-B Indian Penal Code could be said to have been prima facie found against the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh as it was a case of zero evidence and therefore, the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh should have been discharged for offence under section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. (iii) The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has further invited attention of this Court towards some of the observations made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2523/2001 (Guman Singh v. State) which was decided on 14.2.2002 by which the order of suspension of the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh dated 20.9.1996 was revoked. (iii) The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has further invited attention of this Court towards some of the observations made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2523/2001 (Guman Singh v. State) which was decided on 14.2.2002 by which the order of suspension of the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh dated 20.9.1996 was revoked. The learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition has observed that though through order dated 28.8.1998 charges were framed against the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh for the aforesaid offences, but the Department had never considered the petitioner as a delinquent or guilty of any misconduct whatsoever otherwise it could have held disciplinary proceedings against him also as some pattas were issued by petitioner's predecessor in-office and certain consequential orders have been forged and fabricated during his tenure and in the domestic enquiry against other officers/employees in respect of the same subject-matter, petitioner (Guman Singh) has been examined by the department as their witness and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh that these observations made in the order dated 14.2.2002 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2523/2001 filed by the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh clearly support the case of the present accused-petitioner on the point that he was innocent and thus, the order of framing charges against accused-petitioner-Guman Singh for the aforesaid offences is illegal and thus the order dated 28.8.1998 should be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the same does not require any interference by this Court and hence the revision petition filed by the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh should be dismissed. 10. There is no dispute on the point that the learned Judicial Magistrate in his impugned order dated 28.8.1998 came to the conclusion that nothing was done by the accused-petitioner, but he ordered to frame charges against the accused-petitioner (Guman Singh) merely on the ground that irregularities and illegalities were committed in his office and for that he was criminally liable. 11. In my considered opinion, the above findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained. 12. 11. In my considered opinion, the above findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be sustained. 12. So far as charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the same cannot be sustained as the cognizance for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code was taken only at the stage when the arguments were heard on charge and through impugned order dated 28.8.1998 charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code was framed, but no charge-sheet was filed by the police for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code and thus the charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh without providing any opportunity of hearing to him and hence the order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate whereby charge for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code was framed cannot be sustained. 13. For the charge for offence under section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code, no doubt at the stage of framing charges, only prima facie case has to be seen, but in the present case, the impugned order dated 28.8.1998 as well as observations made in the writ petition No. 2523/2001 filed by the accused-petitioner (Guman Singh) reveals that no case of criminal liability can be said to be found against the present accused-petitioner-Guman Singh and the ground that since he was SDO, therefore, he was member of conspiracy cannot be made basis for framing charges against the accused- petitioner-Guman Singh. 14. It may be stated that Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen. 15. Further there must be some mens rea in criminal negligence. 16. 15. Further there must be some mens rea in criminal negligence. 16. All the above, aspects are missing in this case, therefore, the order of framing of charges against accused-petitioner-Guman Singh for offences u/s, 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained and he is liable to be discharged.For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition No. 693/1998 filed by the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh is allowed and the order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur whereby charges for offence Section 119 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and were framed against the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh is quashed and set aside qua the accused-petitioner-Guman Singh and he is discharged from the charges for offence under section 119 Indian Penal Code and Section 467 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code.REVISION PETITION NO. 702/1998 FILED BY ACCUSED-PETITIONER- RAVINDRA NATH 17. The learned Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 28.8.1998 by which charges were framed against the accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath as stated above, has observed that on the disputed files, this accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur made entries in the files on back dates while the pattas were issued later on and not only this, there is clear report of FSL to the effect that signatures which were found on the disputed pattas were of Ravindra Nath Mathur and further, the disputed files were ordered to be decided on 23.11.1989, but the papers were attached with those files latter on 28.12.1991 and thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that there' was emple evidence against this accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur for framing charges for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 18. In my considered opinion, at this stage, since only prima facie case has to be seen and the above findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur and since at the state of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of the evidence is not required to be seen, therefore, the order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not suffer from basic infirmity or illegality and same does not require any interference by this Court qua the accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur.For the reasons mentioned above the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur is dismissed.REVISION PETITION NO. 695/1998 FILED BY ACCUSED-PETITIONER- UPENDRA DAVE 19. The learned Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 28.8.1998 by which charges were against the present accused-petitioner-Upendra Dave as stated above has observed that in the capacity as lawyer, he presented the files for issuance of forged pattas before the SDO of those persons who were not in possession of that land and not only this those persons in whose names applications were filed for issuing pattas, were not in existence and further he was one of the conspirators in getting the forged pattas, and thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was emple evidence against this accused-petitioner-Ravindra Nath Mathur for framing charges for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 20. In my considered opinion, at this stage, since only prima facie case has to be seen and the above findings recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate are sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused-petitioner-Upendra Dave and at the state of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of the evidence is not required to be seen, therefore, the order dated 28.8.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not suffer from basic infirmity or illegality and does not require any interference by this Court qua the accused-petitioner- Upendra Dave.For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner-Upendra Dave is dismissed.Revision Petition No. 693/1998 allowed, Revision Petition No. 702/1998 dismissed and Revision Petition No. 695/1998 dismissed. *******