ORDER Heard the parties. This revision application is directed against the order dated 5.9.2012, passed in Special Case No. 85 of 2010 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010), registered under Sections 403, 109, 120B, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471/201 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioner for her discharge was rejected. 2. It appears that in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P (PIL) No.1530 of 2009, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department wherein it was found that in spite of Junior Engineers of Building Division being available, Assistant Teachers, who were having diploma/degree were deputed to supervise and to construct building of primary schools and other schools situated in different blocks of Bokaro district under the sponsored programme of the Government. They, in course of constructing/supervising of construction work of the building of the schools, indulged themselves in corrupt practices and thereby, they put the Government to heavy loss. 3. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, FIR was lodged wherein it was alleged that in the meeting of Reflection-cum-Planning held at Ranchi, a decision was taken on the pretext of dearth of Junior Engineers to impart training to the teachers having diploma in engineering so that they may be entrusted with the job of construction/supervision of the building of the schools. Pursuant to that decision, an order was passed by Mr. Arun Kumar, the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro upon which the then District Superintendent of Education-cum-Project Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bokaro, deputed 7 teachers for having training at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Ratu, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 05/05/2004. After they received training at DIET, the then Deputy Commissioner deputed them in different blocks for supervising the work of construction of the building of new primary schools and upgraded schools, vide its letter as contained in memo No. 998 dated 01/12/2004. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07/02/2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. By the said order, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed in Gomia block. Subsequently, the then Regional Deputy Director, Education, North Chotanagpur, Hazaribagh vide its letter dated 07/02/2005 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti to take up the work of the construction of the building of the schools situated in Chandankiyari block. When the then Minister concerned came to know about the fact that from the teachers of the schools, the work, which was supposed to be done by the engineer, is being taken, he immediately passed an order for stopping that practice. Pursuant to that, the teachers were relieved from the construction work of the school. However, the then Regional Deputy Director, Hazaribagh, vide its letter dated 17/09/2007 entrusted Ashok Kumar Bharti with the construction work of the building of the schools situated in Petarbar block as well as other blocks and also of the building of Kasturba Gandhi Residential School. 4. So far this petitioner is concerned, she at relevant point of time was posted as Block Education Extension Officer at Gomia. 5. It has been alleged that the petitioner was the person who introduced Ashok Kumar Bharti on account of which an account was opened in the bank in which account Ashok Kumar Bharti deposited the amount which he had received as an advanced for construction of the building. Subsequently he without doing the work worth the amount which he had taken as advance withdrew the money and thereby it is said that the petitioner, in collusion with Ashok Kumar Bharti and other persons, committed offence of forgery, misappropriation as well as criminal breach of trust. 6. Subsequently he without doing the work worth the amount which he had taken as advance withdrew the money and thereby it is said that the petitioner, in collusion with Ashok Kumar Bharti and other persons, committed offence of forgery, misappropriation as well as criminal breach of trust. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at relevant point of time was posted as Block Education Extension Officer at Gomia and when she did find that Ashok Kumar Bharti, who had been paid certain amount as advance for construction of the school building, did misappropriate the amount, she lodged a case against Ashok Kumar Bharti on 15.12.2009 which was registered as Gomia P.S. Case No. 126 of 2009 and much thereafter it was the accused Ashok Kumar Bharti who while was in the police custody did make statement that it was the petitioner who initially refused to be the introducer but only when certain payments were made as illegal gratification, she agreed to be the introducer and thereby she became the introducer of him on account of which an account was opened. This statement has come from the mouth of the accused when he was in the police custody and, therefore, that cannot be taken to be legal evidence. That apart, there has been absolutely no material in the entire case diary to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence and thereby it can be said that there has been absolutely no legal evidence against the petitioner to put her on trial for the offences as alleged, but the court below without taking into account all these aspects of the matter in right perspective did reject the prayer for discharge and thereby the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 7. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, submits that it was the petitioner who had introduced Ashok Kumar Bharti before the official of the bank and on account of which an account was opened which fact the petitioner has admitted in her statement during enquiry and thereby it can easily be said that the petitioner has also in connivance with Ashok Kumar Bharti who misappropriated huge amount. 8. It was further submitted that Ashok Kumar Bharti in his confessional statement has categorically stated that only upon receiving a sum of Rs. 8. It was further submitted that Ashok Kumar Bharti in his confessional statement has categorically stated that only upon receiving a sum of Rs. 60,000/- the petitioner agreed to introduce Ashok Kumar Bharti before the bank. 9. Upon it, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the statement, upon which the Vigilance has been placing reliance, it would appear that the petitioner had introduced Ashok Kumar Bharti upon pressure being mounted by the higher officer and whatever statement of Ashok Kumar Bharti with respect to giving of illegal gratification is there, that is not admissible and that except this fact that the petitioner did introduce Ashok Kumar Bharti there has been absolutely no material showing the hand of the petitioner in the commission of the offence as alleged. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it does appear that except the fact that the petitioner had introduced Ashok Kumar Bharti before the bank on account of which an account was opened by Ashok Kumar Bharti in which account he did deposit the money and subsequently withdrew the money, nothing is there against the petitioner showing her involvement in the alleged offence as alleged. In such situation, it can easily be said that sufficient materials are not there against the petitioner so as to she be put on trial. 11. In this regard, it is well settled that in a case where upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal bar to such prosecution under the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force and that there exists no ground to proceed against the accused, the court may discharge the accused. 12. In this respect, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of Union of India versus Major J.S.Khanna [ (1972) 3 SCC 873 ] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court did opine thereunder: “22. It is true that at the stage when the Special Judge drew up charges and decided to proceed with the case on the footing of a conspiracy to defraud the Government, he had only to see that there was a prima facie case against the two respondents. That could also be the basis upon which the High Court had to try upon two revision applications. That could also be the basis upon which the High Court had to try upon two revision applications. Even so, there had to be some material before the Special Judge which could point towards a conspiracy in which the two respondents had joined. Such of the statements which the investigating officer could procure did not as the High Court observed, point to such a conspiracy. What appears to have been lost sight of by the Special Judge was the fact that the period during which the orders in question were placed was an emergency period, when procedure laid down for such orders could not perhaps be strictly adhered to. He also appears to have lost sight of the fact that out of the thirteen orders in question, four of the value of Rs.32,000/and odd were placed by Brig. Mani, and orders only for the balance of Rs.8000/and odd were placed by Res. Khanna. It may be that someone had played fraud in the matter of quotations in the name of Darrang Transport, United Motor Works, Auto Stores, etc. But unless there was some material at least to link these two officers with the person who tendered those quotations, it is difficult to say that there were conspirators who had joined with the rest of the accused to defraud the Government. In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Mukherje that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case had been made out against either of the two officers.” 13. Further in a case of State of Maharashtra versus Som Nath Thapa [ (1996) 4 SCC 659 ] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “30. In Antulay case Bhagwati, C.J., opined, after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of sections, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of ‘prima facie’ case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, a better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. 31. Let us note the meaning of the word ‘presume’. In Black’s Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean to believe or accept upon probable evidence. In shorter Oxford Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law ‘presume’ means ‘to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.’ Stroud’s Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which ‘A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged.’ In Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar the same quotation finds place at P.1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of material on record, a court could come to the conclusion hat commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might be committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” So far the instant case is concerned, I have already indicated above that except the fact that the petitioner was the introducer of Ashok Kumar Bharti nothing is there except one further fact that she had received the money from Ashok Kumar Bharti which never appears to be the legal piece of evidence, as the same is coming from the mouth of coaccused and hence the said fact of introducing Ashok Kumar Bharti before the bank cannot be said to be sufficient ground for putting the petitioner on trial. All these aspects of the matter were not considered by the trial court and thereby the trial court committed illegality in refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case. Accordingly, the order dated 5.9.2012, under which prayer for discharge of the petitioner from the accusation, has been rejected, is hereby, set aside. Consequently the petitioner is discharged from the case. In the result, this application stands allowed.