JUDGMENT : The petitioner, posted as Cluster Branch Manager at Deoghar, according to the prosecution, was found involved in embezzlement of Rs.3,14,77,000/- from ICICI Bank. In Godda (T) PS Case No.428 of 2013 which was registered under sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code he was not made accused. He is aggrieved of the order dated 02.01.2.0 15 by which his discharge petition filed under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge in G.R No.1240 of 20 13 was rejected. 2. In the order dated 02.01.2015, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda has observed that in the internal enquiry it was found that Vivek Srivastava and Vijay Chaudhary had knowledge about preparation of forged FDRs still they did not take step in the matter rather Ravi Sharma was sent to Godda to manage the things. 3. This criminal revision petition was filed on 27.02.2015 and it was listed for hearing on 11.05.2015. On that day, the lower Court's records were called for from the Court concerned by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, this criminal revision petition was listed on 16.06.2015, 17.06.2015,04.04.2016 and 21.04.2016, but on one ground or the other the matter was not heard finally. On 15.02.2021, when this criminal revision petition was listed before me on a request made on behalf of Mr. Purnendu Sharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, hearing of this criminal revision petition was deferred for 05.03.202l. 4. Even after availing repeated opportunities the Bank has not filed its counter-affidavit. 5. On 19.08.2013, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal gave a written report to the officer-in-charge, Godda PS stating that Ravi Sharma who was Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, Godda accompanied with Vishwajeet and Saroj Jha visited his office at Central Avenue and asked him for some transactions from his account so that Ravi Sharma could achieve the target for his next promotion. Ravi Sharma gave him cheque book of ICICI Bank, Godda Branch and he also provided him four account numbers for making transactions which was to be free of charge. However, later on he detected that Rs.3.5-4 lakhs were charged from him for the month of June and on his protest Ravi Sharma offered him to deposit Rs.5 crores and then the surcharge amount would be returned. However, later on he detected that Rs.3.5-4 lakhs were charged from him for the month of June and on his protest Ravi Sharma offered him to deposit Rs.5 crores and then the surcharge amount would be returned. Accepting the offer of Ravi Sharma, the informant deposited about Rs.3 crores and asked Ravi Sharma who promised him that surcharge amount would be returned. To the surprise of the informant, on 07.08.2013 he found that all the money from the four accounts were withdrawn and transferred to different accounts. In course of investigation, Arun Kumar Singh who was posted as Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, made specific allegations against Ravi Sharma, Anupma Raj, Saroj Jha, Vishwajeet, Chandan Kumar and Vikash Kumar who were at the relevant time posted at ICICI Bank, Godda Branch. The petitioner has referred to the confessional statement of Anupma Raj, Ravi Sharma and Rishikesh Sanjiv who did not implicate him in the entire episode. He claims that he found one fake FDR in Deoghar Branch and the matter was reported to Central Team (Legal/RCU) and he immediately sent a mail to ZRM/Regional Head/Zonal Head. He claims that he had no information about various irregularities committed by Ravi Sharma and his associates and he has infact lodged another First Information Report bearing No.479 of 2013 on 07.09.2013. 6. Mr. Purnendu Sharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that lapse in discharge of duty would not incur a criminal liability and, moreover, there is no material establishing complicity of the petitioner in the crime. 7. A reading of the First Information Report does not indicate involvement of the petitioner in preparation or issuance of fake FDRs. The informant made a specific allegation against Ravi Sharma, Anupma Raj, Vishwajeet, Saroj Jha and Rishikesh Sanjiv and there is no allegation against the petitioner. In course of the internal enquiry, it was found that there was administrative lapse at the end of the petitioner and one of the witnesses has stated that the petitioner had prior knowledge about the ongoing illegal racket operating from Deoghar Branch of ICICI Bank. A co-accused has also stated in his confessional statement that the petitioner was aware of the illegal activities at Deoghar Branch but he did not take any step in the matter. A co-accused has also stated in his confessional statement that the petitioner was aware of the illegal activities at Deoghar Branch but he did not take any step in the matter. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if a person fraudulently or dishonestly induces another to deliver any property to any person, or deceives him to consent that another person shall retain any property commits the offence of cheating. The prosecution case is that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the customers and the Bank as well by preparation of false documents to be used as valuable security. On criminal conspiracy, direct evidence is hard to find and this issue can be decided conclusively during the trial only. An administrative lapse coupled with knowledge about irregularities may take the colour of a criminal offence. From the materials on record, I find that involvement of the petitioner in preparation of fake FDRs is not reflected, however, insofar as the offence under section 420 read with l20B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in my opinion, a prima-facie case is made out. At this stage, the learned Magistrate was not required to examine the materials collected during the investigation minutely and his own bonafide projected by the petitioner cannot be a ground to hold that he was not at all involved in the crime. 8. It is well-settled that while the revisional Court can look into the factual matrix of the case, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised only on a question of law. In exercising jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court would not go into the merits of the case to find out whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. 9. In "Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja" (1979) 4 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. 9. In "Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja" (1979) 4 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police office1: At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that no offence under sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and, accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.01.2015 is set-aside to that extent. However, I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate insofar as offence under section 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. 11. The impugned order dated 02.01.2015 is set-aside to the above extent and in the aforesaid terms. 12. However, Criminal Revision No.180 of 2015 is dismissed as regards the offence under section 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through ‘Fax'.