JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in revision whereby the Revisional Court accepted the revision preferred by the petitioner in part and modified the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in F.R. No. 268/2011 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 complainant filed a first information report against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner used a forged school Transfer Certificate and thereby managed to procure a guide's licence from the Tourism Department. 3. The police investigated the matter and submitted a final report with the finding that the educational qualification was not a pre-requisite for getting licence of guide. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The Revisional Court partly accepted the petitioner's revision and quashed the order taking cognizance to the extent of the offences u/ss. 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. holding that educational qualification was not a requirement to get a guide's licence. It was also held that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner forged the document. However, for using the Transfer Certificate knowing it not to be genuine, the petitioner's prosecution for the offence under section 471 I.P.C. was upheld. 4. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even from the admitted allegations of the prosecution, no prima facie offence under section 471 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner as the Transfer Certificate was not a valuable security. Thus, he contends that even assuming for arguments sake that the document was not genuine, the petitioner's act would not be covered by forgery as defined in Section 463 I.P.C. He submits that for the purpose of bringing an act within the mischief of forgery, a false document has to be used to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud. Admittedly, when there was no requirement of any educational qualification for getting a licence of guide, the petitioner's endeavour in presenting the so called forged Transfer Certificate before the Tourism Department would not be covered under the definition of using as a genuine a forged document. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order and the petitioner's prosecution in this case is grossly illegal and deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the concerned department which issued the licence of guide to the petitioner has not made any complaint in the case. No loss was caused to any body by the grant of guide's licence to the petitioner and thus, the complainant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, and therefore, also the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the impugned orders. The Revisional Court whilst accepting the revision preferred by the petitioner in part held as below in paras 5 and 6 of its order:- "5. The evidence available on record in the form of the Head Master's report goes to prima facie show that the T.C. was not issued by the school. There is also evidence to the effect that this T.C. was used by the accused for the purpose of obtaining license. However, there is no prima facie evidence on record to prove that the signatures of Head Master or the D.E.O. were in fact forged by the revisionist-accused. This could be done only by comparison of signatures or hand writing which has not been done during investigation. 6. Since there was no prima facie evidence to show that the T.C. was in fact forged by the accused, cognizance of offences u/Ss 467, 468 I.P.C. could not have been taken. Similarly the available evidence does not disclose an offence under section 420 I.P.C. as educational qualification was found not to be a requirement during investigation and, therefore, the element of making wrongful gain was missing. However, it could be presumed that the revisionist used the T.C. which he knew not to be genuine and, therefore, cognizance of an offence under section 471 I.P.C. cannot be faulted and there appears to be no illegality in taking cognizance of this offence." 7. However, it could be presumed that the revisionist used the T.C. which he knew not to be genuine and, therefore, cognizance of an offence under section 471 I.P.C. cannot be faulted and there appears to be no illegality in taking cognizance of this offence." 7. The finding of the Revisional Court was categoric to the effect that the Transfer Certificate was not a pre requisite educational qualification for getting a guide's licence. Obviously the Transfer Certificate was neither used for achieving any wrongful gain to the petitioner nor its submission caused any wrongful loss either to the complainant or the Tourism Department. Thus, the petitioner's prosecution in this case is absolutely unjustified. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. All further proceedings of the criminal case arising out of FR No.268/2011 PS Jaisalmer pending in the Court of the CJM, Jaisalmer are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******