Judgment :- (1) This criminal revision invoking Section 482 of the Code, is brought before this Court by the petitioners against an order passed by a Special Court rejecting their prayer for discharge and challenging an order passed by the self-same Court under Section 93 of the Code. (2) The background facts of the case are as follows:- "On the basis of a complaint in writing made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah by one Swapan Kumar Banerjee alleging commission of some cognizable offences against the petitioners, the learned Magistrate referred the same under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Officer -in-Charge, Howrah Police Station with a direction to treat the complaint as First Information Report and to cause investigation. Whereupon the Howrah Police Station Case No. 113 of 2000 under Sections 420/ 468/471/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was alleged in the said complaint that the complainant, who was a registered Government Contractor was awarded with a job for laying pipelines in connection with water supply system at Mazu and its adjoining areas within the Howrah Division. In terms of the said work order the complainant was to execute the work by employing his own labours against supply of raw materials by the Public Health Engineering. In course of execution of the said work the accused persons, viz. Prabir Kumar Bhattacharya, Executive Engineer, Pratip Rudra, Assistant Engineer, Sujit Chowdhury, Sub-Assistant Engineer, all attached to the Public Health Engineering, Howrah Division, issued several H.R. for supply raw materials to the complainant for the said job. To execute the aforesaid work some additional jobs were required to be done for which the department invited separate tenders and the complainant being the lowest bidder was also allotted with those additional jobs. In connection with those additional works the accused persons also issued H.R. for delivery of raw materials. While the aforesaid work was almost complete, out of grudge and ill-motive and with a view to blacklist the complainant, the accused filed a case before the Certificate Officer, Howrah, alleging that the defacfocomplainant took delivery of excess materials worth Rs.6,91,604/- in connection with the said job and for recovery of the said amount of money. In course of such certificate proceedings the said accused persons allegedly filed some forged documents, viz. hand receipts issued by the defacfo-complainant, in support of their claim. In course of such certificate proceedings the said accused persons allegedly filed some forged documents, viz. hand receipts issued by the defacfo-complainant, in support of their claim. When objection was raised against those documents, which appeared to be forged, the learned Certificate Officer called for an explanation from the accused persons but they gave no explanation. According to the defacfo-complainant, the accused persons submitted those hand receipts, in the certificate proceedings forging the signature of the complainant". (3) After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet against the accused persons, the petitioners herein before the learned Special Judge, Howrah for the self-same offence for which the FIR has been registered. When the accused persons moved an application for discharge on the ground that the charge-sheet was submitted without obtaining prior sanction. The said application for discharge was rejected and accused challenged the said order before the Honble High Court but their application in the High Court was also dismissed. After filing of the charge-sheet the Investigating Officer moved an application under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a search warrant for recovery of the 10 alleged hand receipts from the records of the aforesaid certificate proceedings and such application was allowed on contest. (4) After prayer for search warrant under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed. In the meantime, the petitioners also moved an application for discharge on the ground in a case of forgery no charge-sheet can be filed without recovery of the forged documents and also praying for stay of the operation of the order issuing search warrant. When the learned Special Judge rejected the petitioners prayer for discharge as well as the prayer for stay of the search warrant on the ground that order of search warrant was passed by his predecessor in office and same has reached its finality. (5) During the hearing of this case, Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners while Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State. Mr. Mallick produced the Case Diary before this Court. (6) It may be noted that earlier this Court directed the defacto-complainant be impleaded as one of the opposite party and a copy of this application be served upon him. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State. Mr. Mallick produced the Case Diary before this Court. (6) It may be noted that earlier this Court directed the defacto-complainant be impleaded as one of the opposite party and a copy of this application be served upon him. It appears from the affidavit of service filed in Court although the copy of the application was sent to the added opposite party under registered post but same has been returned unserved with the endorsement absent. (7) While making his submission before this Court Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners abandoned all the points taken in the instant criminal revisional application and confined his argument only to the point that in absence of seizure of the alleged forged hand receipts no offence for which charge-sheet has been submitted can said to have been made out and thus the petitioners are entitled to discharge. It is the submission of Mr. Basu that according to the prosecution case the accused persons, the petitioners herein, in course of a certificate proceeding for recovery of Rs. 6.9 lakhs as public demand from the accused persons used and produced some false hand receipts before the Certificate Officer, Howrah, forging the signature of the defacto- complainant but admittedly those hand receipts were not seized by the police during investigation and thus there is no prima facie materials to show that same are forged. It may be noted that Mr. Basu has also abandoned his challenge against the order of issuance of the search warrant passed by the learned Special Judge. (8) On the other hand, Mr. Mallick submitted before this Court that it is true that charge-sheet has been submitted for alleged commission of offence of forgery and cheating without seizure of the forged hand receipts as well as the opinion of the expert as to the alleged forgery in respect thereof. He further submitted that immediately after filing of the charge- sheet the Investigating Officer made a prayer before the learned Court concerned for issuance of search warrant for recovery of those forged hand receipts from the records of the certificate proceedings and same has been allowed. According to Mr. He further submitted that immediately after filing of the charge- sheet the Investigating Officer made a prayer before the learned Court concerned for issuance of search warrant for recovery of those forged hand receipts from the records of the certificate proceedings and same has been allowed. According to Mr. Mallick the Investigating Agency could not able to execute the search warrant as there was a stay granted by this Court and the police must be given an opportunity to seize those documents and then after obtaining of the opinion of the hand writing expert to submit the same before the trial Court. He submitted there is no question of quashing of the case. (9) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. Perused the Case Diary. (10) It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioners instituted a certificate proceeding before the Certificate Officer, Howrah against the complainant for recovery of some of Rs. 6.90 lakhs and odd being the value of excess materials supplied to him and in course of such certificate proceeding to establish their case the accused accepted and used some hand receipts claiming to have been issued by the defacto-complainant acknowledging supply of the materials from them. It is the further case of the complainant, those hand receipts are not genuine and the signature of the ctefacfo-complainant appearing in the said hand receipts are forged and forged by the petitioners to sustain their false claim against the defacfo-complainant. It is an admitted position that not a single alleged forged hand receipts have been seized by the police alleged to have been used during the course of the said certificate proceeding. Now in absence of seizure of those alleged forged receipts and prima facie materials to show the signatures of the defacfo- complainant appearing in those hand receipts are not of his own, in other words, the hand receipts were not signed by him no offence of forgery can said to have been made out. Thus, on the evidentiary material collected by the police during investigation there is no scope to presume that the present petitioners have committed the alleged offences, therefore, they are entitled to an order of discharge. (11) In the result, the instant criminal revisional application stands allowed. Thus, on the evidentiary material collected by the police during investigation there is no scope to presume that the present petitioners have committed the alleged offences, therefore, they are entitled to an order of discharge. (11) In the result, the instant criminal revisional application stands allowed. The impugned order whereby the learned Judge rejected the petitioners prayer for discharge and the order of issuance of warrant of arrest as well as the order of taking cognizance are set aside. (12) However, I make it clear this order will not preclude the Investigating Agency to continue investigation in the matter and in course of such investigation to take necessary steps for seizure of those hand receipts in question and to take necessary steps in accordance with law on the result of such investigation. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.