JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 27.10.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar whereby the accused respondents have been discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 120B IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant-petitioner Khubilal submitted a complaint against the accused-respondents on 05.12.1991 and alleged that 9 students of Class VII were permitted to appear in supplementary examination of Commerce in Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Kheronda out of which 8 were failed but the accused-respondents Nos.1 and 2, after manipulating the record, declared all the nine students as passed. One student Shyam Puri, who did not attend the camp of SUPW but he too was declared as passed. 3. This complaint was forwarded to SHO, PS, Kheroda for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where a case No.3/1992 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police found the case as false and submitted FR No.16/1992 in the court against which the petitioner filed protest petition on which the court took cognizance against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120B IPC and the respondents-accused were summoned through bailable warrants. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court discharged the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred by the complainant. 4. Notices were issued for final disposal to respondents-accused and record of the trial court was called for. Even after service of notices, none appeared on behalf of respondents-accused Nos. 1 to 5. 5. Heard Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for State. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has not considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has acted on surmises and conjectures, thus has committed grave irregularity and illegality while discharging the respondents-accused. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and clearly stated that police too, after investigation, submitted negative final report. 8. I have considered the arguments raised at the Bar and perused the impugned order and record of the case. 9. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order and clearly stated that police too, after investigation, submitted negative final report. 8. I have considered the arguments raised at the Bar and perused the impugned order and record of the case. 9. The learned court below, while considering the fact that when Commerce subject was dropped from the syllabus, therefore, there was no reason to declare them fail in that subject. Further, it was considered by the learned court below that due to ailment, student Shyam Puri could not attend SUPW Camp for one day, therefore, considering his career and future and also considering the fact that he attended the camp for four days, his examination result was declared, which was bonafide. The learned court below also considered the fact that Sohanlal Bhanawat, Librarian, put his attendance in compliance of orders and directions issued by the higher officers in tour and availed leaves as per rules. The learned court below reached on the conclusion that he worked at Headquarter for a long time in the year 1991 and also submitted the attendance certificate issued by the District Education Officer and in attendance register "T" was marked in advance, therefore, he put his signature on "T" and his medical leaves were granted for the leave period. 10. In the matter of Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. & Anr. [ AIR 2010 SC 840 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme court held that mere alteration of document does not make it forged document. In this case, there were allegations against the appellant-accused that he altered dates in certified copy of revenue record for which FIR alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 was lodged. While considering the facts and available record, it was found that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the appellant nor had she acted fraudulently. She had nothing to gain from same. No damage or injury likely to be caused to anybody. Therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court held the charges as innocuous and not giving rise to any offence and also held that the prosecution by complainant was, therefore, malicious and vengeanceful and treating it being abuse of process of law, quashed the proceedings. 11. Here, in the case in hand too, neither malafides were levelled against the respondents-accused nor there are allegations that they gained something from their acts. 11. Here, in the case in hand too, neither malafides were levelled against the respondents-accused nor there are allegations that they gained something from their acts. Further reasonable explanation was offered by the respondents-accused and police too, after investigation, submitted negative report. 12. Therefore, in view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere with the finding of the learned court below and, therefore, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. *******