JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 05.10.2007, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge while accepting the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, has quashed and set aside the order dated 12.02.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisalmer, wherein the learned Magistrate had framed the charges for offences under Section 420, 409 IPC against the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal. Thus, both the petitions are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. Taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.317/2011, the brief facts are that on 05.04.2000 at about 1:00 PM, one Ghanshyam Das Singhal, the then Tehsildar (Colonization), Mohangarh, had lodged a written report at Police Station Mohangarh, Jaisalmer, wherein he alleged that the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, while serving as Patwari, Patwar Mandal Manda B, had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner on 17.03.1999 for depositing against his instalment for land at Chak 2 MGD without giving a pakka receipt. However, he gave a hand written kachhi receipt under his signature for Rs. 10,000/-. He told the petitioner that Pakka receipts were not available. However, the respondent No.2 did not deposit the said amount with the Government. 3. Upon the said complaint, the Police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.41/2000 for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC before the trial court. Vide order dated 12.02.2007, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the appellate court. Vide order dated 05.10.2007, the learned appellate court while accepting the revision petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 12.02.2007. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.317/2011, and Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for the State, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.856/2008, have raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to the complainant, he had clearly stated that the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, was working as a Patwari at the relevant time to whom he had given Rs. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for the State, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.856/2008, have raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to the complainant, he had clearly stated that the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, was working as a Patwari at the relevant time to whom he had given Rs. 10,000/- Although a "Pakka Rasid" was not given by respondent No.2, but a "Kachhi Rasid" was given clearly indicating that the respondent No.2 had accepted Rs. 10,000/- as instalment for payment of rent in the canal area. Moreover, the said "Kachhi Rasid" was sent to the FSL and the FSL had opined that it is an authentic document signed by the respondent No.2. Furthermore, the prosecution has also brought in evidence that during the course of departmental inquiry, the respondent No.2 had admitted the fact that he had accepted Rs. 10,000/- as payment of the land revenue. However, despite all these glaring facts available, the learned Judge has still discharged the respondent No.2. Secondly, the learned Judge has over4 stepped his jurisdiction as he has entered into the realm of defence that can be taken by the respondent No.2. At the time of framing of the charge, the court cannot go into a meticulous examination of the evidence. Moreover, the court is not concerned with the issue whether the trial will eventually end in conviction or not. For, at the initial stage of framing of the charge, the court is concerned only with seeing if a strong prima facie case does exist pointing out to the possibility that the offence has been committed by the accused-respondent or not ? Since the learned Judge has entered into the realm of defence, he has clearly overstepped his jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Farzand Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has strenuously contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence to show that the respondent No.2 was working as a Patwari at the relevant time. Secondly, the receipt produced is on a piece of paper. Therefore, its authenticity is highly doubtful. Thirdly, there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.2 had failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- Therefore no offence is made out under Section 409 IPC. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. Secondly, the receipt produced is on a piece of paper. Therefore, its authenticity is highly doubtful. Thirdly, there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.2 had failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,000/- Therefore no offence is made out under Section 409 IPC. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. It is, indeed, a well settled position that at the time of framing of the charge, the court cannot be concerned with the possible defences which are available to the accused. At the initial stage, the court is merely concerned to see if a strong prima facie case is made out against the offender or not. Taking the prosecution evidence as un-rebutted, the court is merely required to see if the needle of suspicion points to the commission of the offence by the accused or not. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that in Para 5 of the order, the learned Judge has entered into the realm of defences available to respondent No.2. He has even gone to the extent of observing that "if the respondent No.2 had intention to cheat the complainant, he would not have given a receipt to the complainant." It is rather surprising that the learned Judge has discharged the respondent No.2 on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. Moreover, he has entertained the possible defences which the respondent could have taken during the course of trial. Thus, obviously, he has overstepped his jurisdiction. 9. It is equally well settled position that the issues which may arise before the trial court such as probative value of a document, the appreciation of evidence, the strength of the defence, these issues cannot be examined at the time of framing of the charge. Yet, a bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that these issues have not only been dealt with, but have also been adjudicated upon by the learned Judge. It is too early in the day for the learned Judge to express his judicial opinion on these issues. It is an arena which is best left for the trial court. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has clearly overstepped his jurisdiction. 10. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 05.10.2007 and upholding the charge order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the Magistrate. It is an arena which is best left for the trial court. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Judge has clearly overstepped his jurisdiction. 10. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 05.10.2007 and upholding the charge order dated 12.02.2007 passed by the Magistrate. 11. With these observations, theses petitions are, hereby, allowed.Petitions Allowed. *******