ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. 2. Heard finally with consent of parties. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge whereby the Judicial Magistrate, First Class refused to discharge the accused. He confirmed the order of J. M. F. C. passed on Ex. 18 for discharge of the present applicant-accused. 4. A few facts may be stated thus: The applicant was at the relevant time working as Naib Tahsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate. He was authorised by the Government of Maharashtra to issue a caste certificate. On 06.09.1989 the applicant-accused issued a caste certificate in favour of Sanjay Ramdas stating therein that he belongs to Halba caste. The applicant retired from Government service on 31.03.94. After retirement one complaint came to be filed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee challenging the caste certificate issued in favour of Sanjay Ramdas. The said Caste Scrutiny Committee found that the caste of Sanjay was not Halba but was Koshti. An information, therefore, was given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the police and upon report of the Caste Scrutiny Committee an offence has been registered against the present applicant and after investigation a charge sheet has also been filed against the present applicant. The applicant moved an application for his discharge from the proceedings. The learned Magistrate rejected the application for discharge. Revision preferred before the Sessions Judge was also dismissed and being aggrieved by that order of dismissal of revision this application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is filed. 5. It is not in dispute that the applicant issued a caste certificate. It is also not in dispute that it is one of the duties of the applicant as Naib Tahsildar to issue a caste certificate. It is also not in dispute that he issued a caste certificate to Sanjay Ramdas in the year 1989. The contention of the applicant is that the caste certificate was issued by him on the basis of admission register of the father of Sanjay and also ration card. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by letter cancelled the caste certificate. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant did not commit any wrong when he relied upon the School Leaving Certificate and the ration card. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by letter cancelled the caste certificate. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant did not commit any wrong when he relied upon the School Leaving Certificate and the ration card. It was submitted that since School Leaving Certificate of the father showed Halba as the caste he was justified in issuing a certificate to that effect. 6. Shri Deshpande learned APP on the other hand contended that the officer issuing caste certificate is supposed to make a thorough enquiry and the applicant failed to make any enquiry. He invited my attention to the Admission Register Annexure IV of the father. From this it is clear that on 23.07.1954 caste Koshti was scored out and Halba was substituted on the basis of the affidavit. He submitted that apparently therefore, applicant should have taken more care. This admission register extract was in fact not produced before the present applicant but what was produced was the School Leaving certificate of father. There is no scoring of caste in the said certificate and therefore, there was no question of applicant having come to know that in the admission register original caste Koshti has been scored and Halba has been substituted. He submitted that the Government had issued a Circular on 5th May 1976 to the following effect: CIRCULAR: In Government Circular, social welfare, cultural affairs, sports and tourism department, No.CBC 1475/19689/Desk-V, dated 15th October 1975 the authorities empowered to issue caste certificates have already been requested to make the proper verification before issue of caste certificates and to follow instructions issued in Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, letter No.55/1/72 R.U(SCT-V) dated 2nd May 1975and in Government Circular, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department, No.CBC.1475/420/Desk-V dated 23rd September, 1975. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in their letter No.BC 12025/3/76 SCT-J, dated the 29th March, 1976, have written to state that the authorities empowered to issue caste certificates should be informed that action would be taken against them, under the relevant provision of the Indian Penal Code, if any of them is found to have issued the certificates carelessly and without proper verification, in addition to the action to which they render themselves liable, under the appropriate disciplinary rules applicable to them. Government, therefore, desires that the contents of the Government of India letter of 29th March, 1976, should be carefully noted by the authorities empowered to issue caste certificate. By order and in the name of the Govenor of Maharashtra. He also invited my attention to General Conditions issued by Government in this regard. Particularly my attention was drawn to instructions No.3, 4, 8, 11, 13 and 19A. There is no doubt that the officer issuing a certificate was required to follow the instructions contained in the Instructions issued by the Government. It appears that the applicant had followed the instructions as were given by the Government, particularly with regard to instruction No.8. Instruction No.8 required that if it is found from the school leaving certificate on which normally the caste of the candidate is written then such a certificate is issued. In this case it is not in dispute that the certificate of school leaving issued in the year 1954 in favour of the father of Sanjay was produced. It is not that it is a certificate which is fabricated or got prepared recently for the purpose of obtaining certificate in favour of Sanjay. Obviously the present applicantaccused had seen the certificate issued in favour of the father in the year 1954 which shows his caste to be Halba. Sanjay had also produced the ration card to show that he is permanent resident of Nagpur. Obviously, therefore, this Instruction No.8 was scrupulously followed by the applicant. A Government servant in discharge of his official duty is bound to take a reasonable care and when he had seen the certificate issued in the year 1954 and there was also a ration card it could be said that reasonable care was certainly taken by the applicant-accused. A charge under Section 420, 468 and 197 is framed. The charges relate to cheating, forgery for cheating and issuing a false certificate. It should be seen if the F. I. R. itself discloses any of the ingredients of Section 420. The ingredients of Section are as follows: i) Deception of any person; ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. The ingredients of Section are as follows: i) Deception of any person; ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property or iii) to consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. Now the certificate has been issued by the accused-applicant to another accused. The complainant is Government. The deception is said to be to Government but there is absolutely no inducement to the Government to deliver any property nor is there any consent that any person should retain any property. There is no intentional inducement to anybody to do or omit to do anything which he would not do. In no case it could be said that if Government Servant in discharge of duty issued a certificate he had cheated anybody. The accused applicant himself was not to be benefited from issue of such certificate for it is not the case of the prosecution that he issued such certificate in lieu of any monetary benefit. There was neither inducement to anybody or delivery of any property due to such inducement. No damage or harm due to such act is caused to in body in the mind or body. Since there are no ingredients of cheating itself there could be no forgery for the purpose of cheating. In no case this accused applicant who issued a certificate was to use that certificate for himself. It was the other accused who was and could have used the certificate. The present accused-applicant was not to support his any claim on the basis of it. Section 197 of Indian Penal Code speaks of issuing false certificate. Both reports i.e. one sent by Additional Superintendent of Office of Additional District Magistrate does not attribute anything to the present accused-applicant. What is alleged is that: .That accused Ramdas Moudekar got his caste changed on the basis of affidavit. Accused Sanjay and Kavita on that basis obtained a caste certificate from Naib Tahsildar. Ramdas and Sanjay have thus obtained and possessed a false certificate by cheating the Government.. Thus there is nothing in this which even casts an aspersions on the Naib Tahsildar leave alone disclose any offence against him. The F. I. R. is registered by the Investigating Officer Parvekar. Ramdas and Sanjay have thus obtained and possessed a false certificate by cheating the Government.. Thus there is nothing in this which even casts an aspersions on the Naib Tahsildar leave alone disclose any offence against him. The F. I. R. is registered by the Investigating Officer Parvekar. In this F. I. R. it is alleged as follows: .That while (Present applicant) was working as Naib Tahsildar at Nagpur, Sanjay Ramdas had approached for obtaining caste certificate of Halba though he belonged to Koshti caste by producing false and forged certificdate by scoring the caste Koshti and substituting it with Halba. The Naib Tahsildar while issuing certificate of Halba did not scrupulously follow instructions of Government and thus cheated Government.. 7. Now these allegations do not disclose any offence except the allegation the Naib Tahsildar did not follow the instructions scrupulously. Since the accused applicant had acted bonafide in issuing the certificate, simply non following the administrative instructions would not constitute an offence. The act or omission must contain all the ingredients of offence. If they do not then there would be no offence. F. I. R. as was sent by the Additional District Magistrate and by the Investigating Officer do not disclose any kind of offence against the present applicant except negligence on the part of the applicant-accused. Therefore, in fact there was no material to frame charge against the accused. He deserves to be discharged. 8. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is prima facie case it was further contended that even otherwise a charge could not be framed against the applicant accused because no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obtained against him. The accused is sought to be prosecuted for issuing a certificate which according to prosecution is false and forged. It is alleged that he did not scrupulously follow the instructions. It is a part of duty of the applicant to issue certificate. He issued a certificate as a part of his duty. Therefore if any offence is committed in discharge of his duty a sanction would certainly be required. Shri Deshpande the learned APP for State had relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in S. K. Zutshi And Another Vs. Bimal Debnath And Another (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 31 and State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh And Others .Vs. Shri Deshpande the learned APP for State had relied on the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in S. K. Zutshi And Another Vs. Bimal Debnath And Another (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 31 and State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh And Others .Vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 41. In fact it is observed by Their Lordships in S. K. Zutshi's case that the test as to whether the sanction would be required or not is whether omission or neglect to do that act would have brought on the charge of dereliction of his official duty. In the case at hand it is precisely the contention of the Government that there was a dereliction of duty inasmuch as he failed to take adequate care in scrutinising the other record. As said earlier it is not in dispute that it is the official cuty of the present applicant to issue a caste certificate. In fact this case of S. K. Zutshi advances the cause of the applicant accused. Similar is ratio in Ganesh Chandra Jew's case. Yet another ruling reported in Prakash Singh Badal And Another .Vs. State of Punjab And Others (2007)1 Supreme Court Cases 1 was placed before me wherein following observations are made by Their Lordships: .The offence of cheating under Section 420 or for that matter offences related to Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B can by no stretch of imagination by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by any public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. In such cases, official status only provides an opportunity for commission of the offence.. I have found that in fact no offence under Section 420, 468 and consequently Sec. 197 is made out. Even otherwise what has been alleged against the present applicant accused is a mere carelessness in issuing the certificate and that is why to my mind a sanction would be absolutely necessary. Facts of the reported case in Prakash Singh Badal are totally different. On the other hand the ratio as laid down in S. K. Zutshi case would squarely apply to the case at hand. In the circumstances the application is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate are set aside. The proceedings against accused-applicant are quashed.