ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.791/2016 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P. No.791/2016 dated 10.10.2018. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State. 3. The gist of the complaint is that petitioners/accused No.8 and 9 being the employees of Karnataka Bank, Srirampuram Branch, Bengaluru failed to deposit the cheques received from the District Treasury to different branches of Karnataka Bank. It is further alleged that accused No.1, being the Secretary of Shi Education Society and accused No.2, during her tenure as Head Mistress at Kannada Higher Primary School, prepared a fabricated bills relating to salary payments of teachers of Kannada Higher Primary School, have forged the signatures of Educational Authorities on the said bill, cheated and fabricated the records. When the said cheques have been presented, the petitioners accused being the employers have credited the said cheques to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4 by violating the Rules and thereby, they have committed the offences. On the basis of the complaint, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet has been filed. Accused appeared and filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate. The learned I Additional C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred criminal revision petition before the learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The learned Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, after considering the arguments, dismissed the petition. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 are before this Court. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that it is accused Nos.1 to 4 by fabricating and creating the documents, submitted the bill to the treasury without obtaining the signature of the B.E.O. and thereby they have cheated the treasury and also they have brought the cheques. The accused persons being the employees of Karnataka Bank, have credited to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. The said act of the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 is done as usual, it ought to have been done under the normal course of banking transactions. The accused persons being the employees of Karnataka Bank, have credited to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. The said act of the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 is done as usual, it ought to have been done under the normal course of banking transactions. It is his further submission that the name of the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 were not found earlier charge sheet subsequently, only after filing of an additional charge sheet, petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 have been included. It is further submitted that the materials, which were collected to substantiate the charges during the course of investigation by the earlier Investigating Officer does not disclose any material as against the petitioners. Only with an intention to harass the petitioners/accused No.8 and 9, an additional charge sheet has been filed. It is the further submission that even if the entire charge sheet materials are perused, there are no allegations that the petitioners herein have participated in the act of cheating or fabrication of the records. The only allegation made as against the petitioners is that they being the employees of Karnataka Bank, presented the said cheques to the personal accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4, which is contrary to the rules. It is his further submission that there is no mens rea available as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9. He further submitted that in any event, the allegations do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offences either under Sections 409 or 420 of IPC. In order to attract the provisions of Sections 409 or 420 of IPC, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention as against the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Anil Kumar Bose Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1974) 4 SCC 616 . It is his further submission that under similar facts and circumstance of the case, some of the employees of the Karnataka Bank have approached this Court and this Court in Crl.P. No.4960/2011 and other cases, have discharged them. On similar counts, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. 6. It is his further submission that under similar facts and circumstance of the case, some of the employees of the Karnataka Bank have approached this Court and this Court in Crl.P. No.4960/2011 and other cases, have discharged them. On similar counts, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the Investigating Officer having discovered the additional evidence and materials, has filed the charge sheet and the charge sheet material clearly discloses the involvement of the petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 in the alleged crime. It is his further submission that when accused Nos.1 to 4 have presented the said cheques, without verifying the rules and with a dishonest intention, the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 have credited the said cheques to the personal accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4, that ought to have been issued towards salary of the employees of different Institutions and thereby, it shows the criminal intention of the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. 8. On going through the records, the only allegation made as against petitioners/accused Nos.8 and 9 is that they credited the cheques in question to the personal accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. There are no allegations to show that the petitioners herein have fabricated the original salary bills and the charge sheet material makes allegations as against accused Nos.1 to 4 and they have fabricated, created the documents and presented the same before the treasury. Even the learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that the charge sheet material does not contain any material to show that the petitioners herein have participated in any manner either in preparation of the bills or submission of the said bills to the Treasury. However, it is his further submission that the said cheques have been obtained in the name of bank. The accused persons instead of crediting to the accounts of salaries of the Institution, they have negligently credited to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. However, it is his further submission that the said cheques have been obtained in the name of bank. The accused persons instead of crediting to the accounts of salaries of the Institution, they have negligently credited to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. In order to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be mens rea and dishonest intention. In the case of Anil Kumar Bose (quoted supra) at paragraph Nos.12 and 15, it has been observed as under: “12. On the above evidence at the highest it was a failure on the part of the Accountant to perform his duties or to observe the rules of procedure laid down in the Duty Chart in a proper manner and may, therefore, be an administrative lapse on his part about which we are not required to pronounce any opinion in this case. Without, however, anything more we do not think it will be correct to impute to this appellant a guilty intention which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC Apart from this, the High Court is not correct and indeed had no material to hold that “the Accountant did not purposely sign on these forged bills with a view to get himself absolved of the responsibility”. The evidence of the Superintendent, which is extracted above, runs counter to that conclusion. 15. Even on the finding of the High Court, there was nothing in the Duty Chart that the duty of the Cashier was to see that the payment was made to the correct or right person. There is further no evidence that these three Doctors were known to the Cashier. On the other hand, the High Court has not absolutely repelled the argument advanced on his behalf that it was not possible for him to know all the Housemen. The High Court has come to an adverse conclusion against him on account of his not properly “ascertaining who was the real recipient” of the money before he disbursed the same. The material before the High Court together with the significant observation against the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent do make out a case for giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the Cashier as well. The material before the High Court together with the significant observation against the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent do make out a case for giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the Cashier as well. On the evidence which the High Court has relied upon against him, it is not possible to hold that the requisite mens rea has been established against this accused. As observed in the case of the Accountant, it may be at the highest a case of an error of judgment or breach of performance of duty which, per se, cannot be equated with dishonest intention to establish the charge under Section 420 IPC In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court so far as these two appellants are concerned is set aside. The two appellants herein are acquitted of the charge and shall be discharged from their bail bonds.” 9. In catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been laid down that while considering the question of framing of charge, the trial Court has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for a limited purpose, so as to find out whether there is a prima facie case has been made out as against the accused or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and no straight jacket formula or universal law can be made in this behalf. It is well settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the material placed before the Court creates a suspicion and if there is no grave suspicion as against the accused, under such circumstance, the Court will be fully justified in discharging the accused. What are the criteria, which are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering whether it is a fit case to frame the charge as against the accused or not has been considered in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. What are the criteria, which are to be taken into consideration for the purpose of considering whether it is a fit case to frame the charge as against the accused or not has been considered in detail by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL AND ANOTHER reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 at paragraph No.10 it has been observed as under: “Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 10. On close scrutiny of the materials, it indicates that solely on the basis of statement of the bank Manager, the petitioners herein have been implicated in the alleged offences. On close scrutiny of the materials, it indicates that solely on the basis of statement of the bank Manager, the petitioners herein have been implicated in the alleged offences. The only allegation made as against the petitioners is that they being the employees of Karnataka Bank, presented the said cheques to the personal accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4, which is contrary to the Rule. If at all, the charge sheet is accepted, it may amount to nothing but negligent on the part of the employees of the bank. But there is no mens rea or any overtacts as against petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned. The charge sheet goes to show that it is accused Nos.1 to 4, who have fabricated the documents, obtained the salary cheques and the same have been presented before the Bank and also the same have been credited to the accounts of accused Nos.1 to 4. The circumstances brought on record do not indicate that the petitioners herein had any motive or dishonest intention or they have derived any benefit out of the said transaction. Even if the charge sheet material if it is accepted, on its face value, it does not even disclose that the petitioners herein were either negligent or inefficient in discharging their official duties. Even the learned HCGP shows his ignorance about initiation of the proceedings as against the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 by the Bank. When all the material if it is scanned, it discloses the fact that the materials on record are not sufficient to make out any of the ingredients of the offence alleged as against the petitioners. If at all, they are negligent, then it is left open to the Bank Authorities to take appropriate departmental action in so far as with reference to their negligence is concerned and it will not constitute offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Even as could be seen from the records, the similar type of allegations have been made as against some of the petitioners/accused and other accused persons, who were also working in the same bank and they have approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4960/2011 and 4961/2011. This Court by order dated 24.07.2018, has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated as against them. This Court by order dated 24.07.2018, has allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated as against them. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein have made out a case so as to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order. 11. The petition is allowed and the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.791/2016 by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and the petitioners/accused Nos. 8 and 9 are hereby discharged.