ORDER By the Court. -Heard the parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 31.1.2011 passed by the then S.D.J.M., Godda in G.R. No. 1195 of 2007 (T.R No. 497 of 2011), whereby and where under a petition filed under Section 239. Cr PC for discharging the petitioner from the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code was rejected: 3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant a Block Development Officer-cum-Block Programme Officer. Poraiyahat, lodged a case alleging therein that in course of verification of the accounts of gram panchayats, opened under the scheme of National Rural Employment Guarantee, in Vananchal Gramin Bank, Poraiyahat, he found that from the account bearing A/c. No. 3704 standing in the name of gram panchayat. Tarkhutta a sum of Rs. 3,20,500/- had been withdrawn. whereas a sum of Rs. 2.60.000/- had been withdrawn from the account of gramin panchayat Liladah. Since such huge amounts had been withdrawn, he became suspicious of some found play. Therefore, he asked from the Branch Manager (petitioner) about the cheques through which those amounts had been withdrawn. On production of the said cheques, it was found that his signature as well as the signatures of the Secretaries of both gram panchayats namely. Tarkhutta and Liladah had been forged. Still the said amounts were allowed to be withdrawn and were deposited in the account of one Gopal Mandal. 4. Since the Secretaries of the aforesaid panchayats were the custodian of cheque-book. it has been alleged that the Secretaries of aforesaid gram panchayats in connivance with the Branch Manager (petitioner) as also Gopal Mandal have committed offence of forgery and misappropriation. On such allegation, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 182 of 2007 was registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 484 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 5. The matter was taken up for investigation and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offences under Sections 409 and 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code was taken. Subsequently a petition for discharge was filed which was rejected vide order dated 30. 1.2011 by holding that prima facie case is there for framing charges against the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this revision application. 6. Mr. Subsequently a petition for discharge was filed which was rejected vide order dated 30. 1.2011 by holding that prima facie case is there for framing charges against the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this revision application. 6. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior counsel appearing for, the petitioner submits that without there being any act of commission of offence alleged the petitioner has been made accused simply for the reason that the petitioner being Manager of the Branch cleared one of the two cheques tendered for its encashment and thereby the amounts were withdrawn from the accounts and were deposited in the account of Gopal Mandal. 7. In this regard, it was submitted that the accounts of gram panchayats, opened under the scheme of National Rural Employment Guarantee, were to be operated jointly by the Secretary of Panchayats as also by the Block Development Officer-cum-District Programme Officer. One of the cheques when was tendered for its encashment, the petitioner on finding the signatures of the Secretary of gram panchayat as also of the Block Programme Officer cleared and it was deposited in the account of Gopal Mandal. Subsequently, when it was informed by the informant that his signature had been forged, the petitioner immediately acted upon and stopped withdraw of the amount from the account of Gopal Mandal who had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2,90,000/- only. Thereafter the petitioner could succeed in persuading Gopal Mandal to deposit the amount, which he had withdrawn and that when the cheques were presented, seals of the Secretaries of both gram panchayats were there and that apart signatures of Block Programme Officer as well as gram panchayat sevaks were there and as such there was no reason for being suspicious and under these situations the cheque was cleared and hence there does not appear any mens rea on the part of the petitioner to commit offence as has been alleged. 8. It was further submitted that there has been absolutely no material in the case diary to establish that the petitioner did do anything with criminal intent to commit the offence as alleged. In spite of that charge-sheet was submitted and when prayer was made to discharge the petitioner, as no sufficient ground is there against him for proceeding with the trial the Court below without appreciating the submission and the fact rejected the prayer. 9. In spite of that charge-sheet was submitted and when prayer was made to discharge the petitioner, as no sufficient ground is there against him for proceeding with the trial the Court below without appreciating the submission and the fact rejected the prayer. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the case diary, called for would go to show that nothing is there against the petitioner showing his involvement in the offence in any manner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it does appear that when two account payee cheques of different panchayats bearing signatures of Block Programme Officer and the respective Secretaries of Panchayats were produced, one of them was cleared by the petitioner and then the amounts were credited in the account of Gopal Mandal. Subsequently the informant alleged that on the basis of the cheques bearing forged signatures the amounts had been allowed to be withdrawn. On such allegation a case was registered not only against the Secretaries of both panchayats and Gopal Mandal a beneficiary, but also against the petitioner. When the matter was taken up for investigation the Investigating Officer thought it proper to get the information from higher officer of the Bank about the previous conduct of the petitioner also the opinion as to whether it appears to be a case of criminal conspiracy or it is a case of negligence. Accordingly information/opinion was asked from the higher officers who seem to have submitted report that the services of the petitioner and other bank officials were quite satisfactory. At the same time, it was also stated that the signature of Block Programme Officer appears to be the same as that of specimen signature but the signatures of the secretaries of both panchayats differ but it has come that the seal of panchayat was there and that those cheques were account payee cheques. It has also been reported that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent withdrawal, he immediately passed order for stopping withdrawal from the account of Gopal Mandal and also succeeded in getting the amount, which had been withdran by Gopal Mandal, deposited back in the account. It has also been reported that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the fraudulent withdrawal, he immediately passed order for stopping withdrawal from the account of Gopal Mandal and also succeeded in getting the amount, which had been withdran by Gopal Mandal, deposited back in the account. The fact which has come during investigation, never shows in any manner towards criminal act of the petitioner still charge-sheet was submitted though nothing is there against the petitioner showing criminal intent of the petitioner in any manner. Thus, one can easily come to the conclusion that no sufficient material is there against the petitioner to proceed with the trial but the Court below did not consider all these aspects of the matter and hence the order dated 31.1.2011 passed by the then S.D.J.M., Godda refusing to discharge the petitioner from the accusation is hereby quashed. 11. Consequently, the petitioner is discharged from the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 468 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 12. Accordingly, this revision application stands allowed. Revision allowed.