JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.B.I. Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) as well as the order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in a revision petition preferred by the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the trial is pending against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, wherein the allegation against the petitioner No.1 is that in his place, petitioner No.2 Rajeev Kumar, Junior Engineer working in the Railways had appeared in the examination conducted by the Railways for the purpose of recruitment on the post of JE-II (PW) held in the year 2007. 3. The petitioners moved an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the trial court and prayed that the Railways Authorities are guilty of abetment of offence of cheating because despite receiving the information from the expert committee that the petitioner No.1 Vikas Kumar had not appeared in the examination and someone else had appeared on his place, they provided appointment to the petitioner No.1 on the post of JE-II(PW) vide order dated 30.11.2007. 4. It was contended by the petitioners before the trial court that had the Railways Authorities not allowed the petitioner No.1 to join his duties and not paid him stipend during the course of training, he would not have been liable to commit the offence of cheating. The petitioners had also contended that as the Railways Authorities had allowed the petitioner No.1 to join duties despite knowing very well that someone else had appeared on his place in the recruitment examination, further investigation in the role of Railways Authorities is necessary. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court has argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have wrongly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners though it is a fit case, wherein the court should order for further investigation into the role of the Railways Authorities, which were clearly responsible for abetting the petitioner No.1 for committing the cheating. 6. 6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. has argued that the Railways Authorities have accorded the appointment to the petitioner No.1 on provisional basis along with 41 other candidates with a condition that in future if any irregularity is found in the recruitment process, his appointment would be terminated and, therefore, both the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders. The learned counsel for the C.B.I., therefore, prays for dismissal of this misc. petition filed by the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. 8. The learned trial court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under section 173(8) Cr.P.C., while observing that the petitioner No.1 was accorded appointment by the Railways Authorities on provisional basis with a condition that if any irregularity is found in the recruitment process, his appointment would be terminated and, therefore, there is no requirement for any further investigation to ascertain the role of the Railways Authorities. The revisional court has also taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and observed that there was a batch of 41 candidates, which was scheduled to be sent for training and for only one person, all the candidates of the said batch could not be withheld till the completion of vigilance probe against the petitioner No.1 because after investigation, if the complaint against the petitioner No.1 would have been found false, the Railways Authorities had to send the petitioner alone for training. The revisional court has also observed that the petitioner No.1 was accorded provisional appointment and he was only sent for training and not provided regular appointment, therefore, it cannot be concluded, even prima facie, that the Railways Authorities have abetted the petitioners for committing the offence of cheating. 9. After perusing the impugned orders carefully, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders were passed after taking into consideration the entire material placed on record, and the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to persuade this Court to take a different view and to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. 10. Hence, there is no force in this criminal misc. petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******