JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Respondent received amount of Rs.7,384/- of his provident fund which was credited in his account with Beed District Central Co-op. Bank of which, petitioner was Manager at the relevant time i.e. on 18th September, 1997. 3. The grievance of the respondent is, he did not avail said amount nor withdrawn it. However, debit note of Rs.7,250/- was made in the record of the bank and hence, the prosecution. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. directed investigation in terms of Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. Police report was negative. Thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. issued process for offence under Sections 418, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioner - Parmeshwar and two others i.e. D.M. Dongre and R.B. Sanap. The matter was carried in Criminal Revision Application No. 14 of 2010 and on 14th July, 2010, the Revision was dismissed. 5. Basically, the deposit was dated 18th September, 1997 and there is entry of debit of Rs.7,250/- in the account of respondent - complainant. His grievance was about withdrawal slip to be shown to him however, he did not bother to verity the same for a period of eleven years. It was on 15th September, 2008, the alleged transaction of 1997 he woke from slumber and lodged accusations against the petitioner and two others. 6. As per the policy of the bank and its circular dated 16th March, 2005, record of the bank, for a particular period, is normally destroyed and bank record shows, record for the period 1997 was not available barring registers. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, unfortunately, did not browse to this fact and referred to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act which contemplates special knowledge to a person. Scope of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act require the prosecution to discharge initial burden to establish guilt of accused. There could not be prosecution in terms of cheating or creating forged record. The petitioners remotely can be said to be beneficiaries of alleged debit entries. No criminality is surfaced. Process in R.C.C. No. 464 of 2008 against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. Ordered accordingly.