JUDGMENT : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore prayed that this revision may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 10-07-2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 2, Bikaner (Camp Dungargarh) in Criminal Revision No. 13/2017 titled Ratan Singh v/s State of Rajasthan and another may kindly be set aside and the order dated 12-09-2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Dungargarh in Criminal Original Case No. 489/2016 titled State of Rajasthan v/s Shanti Devi may be restored. Any other relief which is considered just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that the complainant-respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist-petitioner before the Police Station Shri Dungargarh, alleging therein that the petitioner, Smt.Shanti Devi and one Smt. Sunita d/o Shri Mohan Dan had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch of the village, Dhirdesar Purohitan against each other, which the revisionist-petitioner had won. It was however, alleged that on the day of filing the nomination, the revisionist-petitioner had filled the form mentioning therein that he was a Class VIII pass, and that she had attached the T.C. as proof of the same, but the same was allegedly forged and fabricated. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant had sought a copy of the necessary record in relation to the aforementioned certificate under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but that the complainant was informed that on account of a flood, which had occurred in the year 1978-79, the entire record was destroyed. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant had sought a copy of the necessary record in relation to the aforementioned certificate under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but that the complainant was informed that on account of a flood, which had occurred in the year 1978-79, the entire record was destroyed. 3.1 On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner, wherein, after investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the revisionist-petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri Dungargarh, Bikaner subsequently discharged the revisionist-petitioner of the above-mentioned offences vide order 12.09.2017, but that the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner, vide the impugned order dated 10.07.2019, while quashing and setting aside the aforementioned order dated 12.09.2017, directed the learned trial court to frame charges against the revisionist-petitioner for the above-mentioned offences and proceed with the trial accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the learned lower appellate court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of discharge passed by the learned trial court, and that it did not take into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record before it. 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court rightly took into consideration that the two affidavits in the case, both of which were given by Bhanwar Lal Purohit, one dated 14.02.2015, and that the stamp of the same was purchased by one Hetu Dan Charan who was one of the complainants, and real uncles of the rival candidate, Smt. Sunita and the other dated 21.12.2015, wherein he stated that he is unaware as to who signed the T.C. of the revisionist-petitioner, and who were the teachers in Shiv Private school during the period in question and that there were 2/3 persons named Bhanwarlal at that time. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that Bhanwarlal Purohit, in the second affidavit, stated that he signed the first affidavit at the instance of Hetu Dan Charan and Ratan Singh Jat, and that he was unaware of the contents of the first affidavit. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that Bhanwarlal Purohit, in the second affidavit, stated that he signed the first affidavit at the instance of Hetu Dan Charan and Ratan Singh Jat, and that he was unaware of the contents of the first affidavit. 4.3 Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court rightly held that, on the basis of the above-mentioned, the version of the prosecution was unreliable and therefore, it would be appropriate to discharge the revisionist-petitioner. 4.4 Learned counsel also submits that the T.C. being forged and fabricated are baseless allegations, as the T.C. was deposited in the year 2011 itself, while she stood for elections only in the year 2015, and therefore, the allegation that the revisionist-petitioner forged and fabricated the T.C. is illogical. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and submits that the learned trial court in fact erred in discharging the revisionist-petitioner, and the learned lower appellate court rightly found a prima facie case to be made out against the revisionist-petitioner, and rightly ordered for framing of charges for the offences under the above mentioned Sections of the I.P.C. 5.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned lower appellate court, has rightly found that a prima facie case against the revisionist-petitioner is made out, since during the year in question, there was no person named Bhanwarlal serving as Headmaster in Shiv Private school and that the T.C., which was allegedly forged and fabricated, was also not entered into the records of the school, and thus, the authenticity of the same was rightly called into question. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that at the stage of framing of charges against the revisionist-petitioner, a detailed analysis or a roving enquiry is not required. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor harped upon the word “presumption” occurring in Section 228 Cr.P.C. stating that if the Judge is of the opinion that a ground for presumption of the alleged offence against the accused lies after consideration and hearing of the case, then charges can be framed against such accused. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 9. 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record of the case. 9. This Court observes that the learned lower appellate court, vide impugned order 10.07.2019, has recorded a clear finding that after a perusal of the evidences placed on record before it, it is clear that at the time of the issuance of the T.C. in the name of the revisionist-petitioner, from Shiv Private School, Dungargarh during the year 1978-79, no person named Bhanwarlal was the Principal / Headmaster of the said school, as well as that Bhanwarlal has himself stated that he did not sign the T.C. in question, of the revisionist-petitioner and therefore, prima facie it appears that the T.C. is question, which provides assistance to the claim of being a Class VIII pass i.e. the educational qualifications of the revisionist-petitioner, was forged and fabricated. 10. This Court further observes that, at the stage of framing of charge, the learned court below is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 . 11. This Court is also conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 , wherein it was observed that a prima facie test was to be applied at the stage of framing of charge and the probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. The meaning of the word “presume” was also analyzed and it was held to mean that unless evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. 12. In light of the above made observations, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner (Camp) Dungargarh, District Bikaner does not suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court, at this stage. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.