Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners herein are the accused 3 and 4 in S.C.No.60 of 2009, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Rasipuram. They filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 227 Cr.P.C seeking discharge and the said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Rasipuram Branch of State Bank of India, sent soiled notes to Reserve Bank of India, Chennai on 08.03.2005 and the Reserved Bank of India officials detected 750 numbers of hundred rupee currency notes received from the said branch were counterfeit currency notes. On 14.05.2005, a team of RBI officials inspected the Rasipuram branch of SBI and they detected one bundle (10 sections) of counterfeit currency notes with 500 Rupee denominations kept in Bin No.27 of the currency chest (Vault). The enquiry revealed that the first accused who was functioning as a messenger in the branch had replaced the said counterfeit notes in the place of genuine notes. 3. About two months prior to 14.05.2005, the second accused gave the counterfeit currency notes 976 in number of 500 Rupee denominations and the first accused substituted those currency notes among the genuine currency notes in the bank. According to the prosecution, the 3rd and 4th accused who were Deputy Manager (Cash) and Accountant respectively were the joint custodians and the key holder of the currency chest during the relevant period. As per the bank procedure, no article should go out and come in without the knowledge of the joint custodians. Therefore, only with the assistance of the accused 3 and 4, the first accused substituted the said counterfeit currency notes and the accused 3 and 4 were in possession of those counterfeit currency notes. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, it was only the first accused who substituted the counterfeit notes in the place of genuine currency notes and absolutely there is no iota of material to show these petitioners/A.3 and A.4 assisted the first accused in the commission of the offence. If at all it could be said they failed in their duty to prevent the commission of the offence by A.1, but the first accused had done his act stealthily. 5. If at all it could be said they failed in their duty to prevent the commission of the offence by A.1, but the first accused had done his act stealthily. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even as per the First Information Report given by the Chief Manager, Nelliappan, the first accused has admitted his guilt and he had given a statement in writing to him. In the said statement, he had admitted that he placed the genuine currency notes, while the third accused had been away for a short time and as per his confessional statement, only he was involved in the commission of the offence without the knowledge of the third and fourth accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that even in the confession said to have been given by the first accused before the police, it is stated that while cash officer went to take his food, he had substituted the counterfeit currency notes. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the cash systems and procedures, the petitioners are responsible for the quality and quantity of the currency inside the currency chest and there is no possibility of any currency going out and coming in without the knowledge of the key holders. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the First Information Report was for the purpose of setting the law into motion. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a prima facie case is made out to frame charges against the accused under Section 489-B r/w 109 and 489(c) IPC. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by both parties and perused the records. It appears that the First Information Report was given in this case by one Mr.Nelliappan, Chief Manager of State Bank of India. In the said complaint, he had stated that the first accused confessed that he had replaced the valid currency notes with counterfeit notes and those counterfeit notes were supplied by one person from Attur. The first accused also gave a letter of confession dated 18.05.2005 in writing in the presence of a Notary Public. 9. In the said complaint, he had stated that the first accused confessed that he had replaced the valid currency notes with counterfeit notes and those counterfeit notes were supplied by one person from Attur. The first accused also gave a letter of confession dated 18.05.2005 in writing in the presence of a Notary Public. 9. A perusal of the confession statement given by the first accused to the Chief Manager of the Bank disclosed that the first accused had stated that on 15.01.2005, he had substituted 8 bundles of counterfeit currency notes without the knowledge of any other person. Again on 10.02.2005, while the cash officer moved out of the center table, he had stealthily substituted 10 bundles of 500 Rupee counterfeit currency notes. He also made it clear in the confessional statement, no other person belonging to the bank is responsible for this act. He had acted individually. This confession statement given by the first accused amounts to extra judicial confession. This is the main piece of evidence before the trial Court. Further the said confessional statement also had been attested by one Notary Public, Paramasivam, who is also cited as a witness in the final report. It cannot be said that merely it is only the First Information Report, but it has got evidentiary value while it is marked before the trial Court. The extra judicial confession of the first accused Raju having excluded the knowledge or any participation of the accused 3 and 4, this Court is wondering as to why the investigating officer included the third and fourth accused also in the final report as accused. The Investigating Officer has also not collected any specific material to show the involvement of the third and fourth accused in the commission of the offence of the first accused, except by collecting particulars regarding the procedures to be adopted by the accused 3 and 4. No material has been collected by the Investigating Officer to hold that A.3 and A.4 had the knowledge about the act of the first accused or they had in any manner knowingly assisted the first accused. This court feels that it is unfair on the part of the Investigating Officer to include the petitioners as accused in spite of the specific material being available that they were not involved in the offence committed by the first and second accused. This court feels that it is unfair on the part of the Investigating Officer to include the petitioners as accused in spite of the specific material being available that they were not involved in the offence committed by the first and second accused. In fact the confession recorded by the police from the first accused also indicates only the involvement of the first accused in substituting the counterfeit currency notes and the said confession does not implicate the accused 3 and 4. The confession of the first accused implicates only the second accused from whom he got the counterfeit currency notes. 10. This Court does not find any prima facie material against the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to say that they had assisted the first accused in the commission of offence or they were aware of the counterfeit currency notes being kept in the bank. Mere failure on the part of the accused to prevent the offence by the first accused by strictly not following the procedures is not sufficient material to frame charges against them for the criminal liability. 11. The order of framing charge without any material affects the personal liberty of the accused and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the materials warrants the framing of the charge. The learned Sessions Judge had not exercised his jurisdiction properly and failed to apply his judicial mind while deciding the matter in this case. 12. For the above said reasons, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The petitioners/accused 3 and 4 are discharged from the case. Consequently M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.