JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant criminal revision petition, stands, directed by the petitioner herein/accused, against, the impugned verdict, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Solan, H.P, (a) where through, she after dismissing the application, cast under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., and, as preferred there before, by the petitioner herein, and, wherein, he sought, an, order, vis-a-vis, his being discharged qua the offences constituted, under, Sections 468, 420, 471 read with Section 120 B of the IPC, and, borne in the apposite FIR, rather ordered, for, charges qua therewith being framed against, the accused. 2. Tritely put, the, expostulation(s) of law, as, embodied, in, judgments alluded, in, the impugned order, do trammel, the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, to, upon, a prima facie case, being made out against the petitioner, vis-a-vis, the offences constituted under Sections 468, 420, 471, and, under Section 120-B, IPC, and, also concomitantly hence, render, her barred, to, make an order of discharge, upon, the accused's application cast, under, Section 239, of, the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the material alluded therein, and, hence, prima facie personificatory, vis-a-vis, a conclusion becoming rearable therefrom, vis-a-vis, the offences borne in the FIR, being prima facie allegedly committed, by the petitioner, and, also hence, his becoming amenable, for, facing trial, is, comprised (a) the disclosure statement, made by, the, principal accused one Roshan Thakur, who hence used, a, false document, to, obtain public service, and, who therein made echoings, vis-a-vis, the forged matriculation certificate being prepared, rather by the revisionist, and, besides made echoings qua after its becoming prepared by the revisionist, his, tendering, to him, an, illegal gratification, comprised in a sum of Rs.20,000/-, (b) the identification of the institute operated, by the revisionist, rather being made, by, the afore principal accused, (c) the landlord of the building, making disclosure(s), qua, the, taking on rent thereof, by the revisionist, for his thereat operationalising, an institution, named, and, styled, as, National Career Computer Education, and, also, the, corroborative thereto signatured statement, made, before the Investigating Officer concerned, rather by the revisionist. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the afore purported best incriminatory pieces of evidence, are, rather unmeritworthy nor any probative sanctity, is, assignable thereto, (d) and, hence, the concomitant there from conclusion, is qua no prima facie case, being made out against the revisionist, for his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Sections 420, 428, 471, and, under Section 120-B, IPC, (e) and, rather the making, of, a disaffirmative order, on the revisionist's afore application, by the learned trial Magistrate, being infirm, and, meriting interference. (f) The statement of the principal accused, and, also of the landlord, not either being suffice, and, nor constituting, the, best incriminatory valuable pieces of evidence, of, immense probative vigour, (g) rather the best incriminatory pieces, of, evidence, hence, of optimum probative sanctity, standing, comprised, in the Investigating Officer, rather seizing the computers operating at the institute, and, also being managed, and, operationalised, by the revisionist, and, thereafter his ensuring collection, of, firm evidence, qua the forged matriculation certificate, hence, emanating therefrom. However, the Investigating Officer concerned, has not, either seized, the, computers, as, existing/existed, in, the institute managed or operationalized, by the revisionist, and, nor obviously, he, hence, thereafter ensured, that, the forged matriculation certificate, rather emanating therefrom. The consequence of the afore best evidence remaining uncollected, rather by the Investigating Officer concerned, does, marshal an inference, vis-a-vis, the reliance, as, placed by the learned trial Magistrate, upon, the afore alluded material, as, existing there before, and, to, hence thereupon record a disaffirmative order, upon, an application cast, under the provisions of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., and, preferred there before, by the applicant/revisionist, being a gross misreliance thereon. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the impugned order, as, rendered by learned trial Magistrate concerned, upon, the revisionist's application, and, stood cast there before, under, the provisions of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., is, set aside. In sequel, the afore application, cast under, the, provisions of Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., is, allowed, and, the revisionist, is, discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith to the quarter concerned.