ORDER : 1. Accused No.5 in C.C.No.93 of 2016 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). He filed C.M.P.No.1147 of 2022 seeking discharge. The Special Court dismissed that petition as per the order dated 16.11.2023. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The petitioner was a Village Assistant in Chinnakanal Village. While working as such, he allegedly had prepared false sketches and certificates in respect of property comprised in survey No.20/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which is situated in Venadu thavalam, as if the said property is in Chinnakanal thavalam. It is Government land. Disregarding that fact the certificate was issued describing it as a property covered by Patta No.LA 24/1968, which is a forged document. The petitioner did so based on a conspiracy hatched among the accused persons. Thereby the accused and his co-accused have allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 468 , 471 and 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ). 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance) and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 4. The essential allegation against the petitioner is that he being a Village Assistant failed to ascertain whether the property covered by the sketch and certificate, which he had prepared for being issued to witness Nos.3 and 22 was a Government land or not. The sketch and certificate prepared by him were submitted before the Village Officer, who is accused No.4 and he in turn issued to the parties. The property covered by the said sketch and certificate is a Government land. It is situated in Venadu thavalam; whereas the petitioner, without verifying that fact, certified in the plan and the certificate that it was in Chinnakanal thavalam. The petitioner could well ascertain from the records in the village office the real state of affairs. Still he prepared such false documents, which evidences his misconduct with dishonest intention. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that being a Village Assistant, the petitioner did not have any independent authority to issue a sketch or certificate. The petitioner could well ascertain from the records in the village office the real state of affairs. Still he prepared such false documents, which evidences his misconduct with dishonest intention. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that being a Village Assistant, the petitioner did not have any independent authority to issue a sketch or certificate. He was functioning as per the direction of the Village Officer and had prepared the documents only as instructed by the Village Officer. When pokkuvaravu was done and tax received for the property in question much earlier, preparation of the sketch in accordance with such revenue records and also the title deed cannot be a mischievous act. At any rate, no conspiracy involving the petitioner and his obtaining any pecuniary advantage in relation to the issuance of the sketch and certificate are substantiated by the materials produced by the prosecution. It is submitted that the Special Court without considering such aspects held that there was sufficient materials to ask the petitioner to stand trial. 6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that a Village Assistant could easily ascertain the Government lands within the local limits of the village and when a certificate is issued disregarding that fact, dishonest intention can certainly be attributed. By mere perusal of the records in the village office, the petitioner could understand that the property in question was not in Chinnakanal thavalam, but it was in Venadu thavalam. The sketch was prepared denoting that the property was in Chinnakanal thavalam. It was also easy for the petitioner to ascertain whether the patta in LA No.24/1968 was genuine or not. That also was overlooked by the petitioner. When those facts are borne by records, in the view of the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is disentitled to claim a discharge. 7. It was not based on patta No.LA 24/1968 mutation was effected in the name of witness Nos.3 and 22. On the basis of fabricated patta, a document was executed by accused No.9 in favour of his son, accused No.1. Tracing title to the property based on that document accused No.1 sold properties to witness Nos.3 and 22. Going by the case of the prosecution, mutation was effected based on the assignment in favour of accused No.1, which was in consequence of the conspiracy hatched among accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 to 9. Tracing title to the property based on that document accused No.1 sold properties to witness Nos.3 and 22. Going by the case of the prosecution, mutation was effected based on the assignment in favour of accused No.1, which was in consequence of the conspiracy hatched among accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 to 9. Land tax was also paid. It was much later accused No.1 executed sale deeds in favour of witness Nos.3 and 22. During the year 2006, pokkuvaravu was effected on the basis of the said documents. Land tax was also received. After a year the certificates in question were prepared by the petitioner. The sketch and certificate were seen prepared on 06.02.2007 and 07.04.2007. One among the two sketches, namely, regarding the property conveyed in favour of witness No.22, was prepared by accused No.4, the Village Officer; whereas the other one was prepared by the petitioner. In the title deeds in favour of witness Nos.3 and 22, the property has been described as one situated in Chinnakanal thavalam. Acting upon the said title deeds, mutation was effected and tax received. In the light of the said records maintained in the village, accused No.5, the petitioner, prepared the sketch and the certificate. 8. As alleged by the prosecution, the petitioner could have understood that the property involved was Government land and the patta No.LA 24/1968 was a fabricated one. But the patta was an old one and there were subsequent transactions by way of even conveyance, dishonest intention in preparing the sketch and the certificate at a later point of time on the part of the petitioner cannot readily be inferred. Unless there are materials to show that the petitioner had a dishonest intention in preparing the sketch and certificate in question, his criminal prosecution is incorrect. Going through the materials produced by the prosecution what could be gathered is the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. More than that, a mischievous act of preparing the sketch and certificate with dishonest intention of gaining some material thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be gathered from the materials produced by the prosecution. It is especially so when an year before mutation was effected and tax received from witness Nos.3 and 22 on the basis of the title deeds in their favour. In the said circumstances, accusation against the petitioner is based on inferences. It is especially so when an year before mutation was effected and tax received from witness Nos.3 and 22 on the basis of the title deeds in their favour. In the said circumstances, accusation against the petitioner is based on inferences. No tangible evidence to substantiate the charge is proposed by the prosecution. 9. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [AIR 1977 SC 2018] the Apex Court held that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. At that stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be meticulously judged. It is also unnecessary to weigh the probable defence of the accused. The view taken by the Apex Court in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another [(1989) 1 SCC 715] is that the court need not conduct an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing of the evidence at the time of framing charge. It is also not necessary to delve into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another [(1979) 3 SCC 4] the Apex Court held that where the materials disclosed grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court would be justified in framing a charge against the accused. In Soma Chakravarty v. State through CBI [ (2007) 5 SCC 403 ] the Apex Court reiterated the said view by holding that when there exists a strong suspicion, a charge can be framed. It was also cautioned that a mere suspicion as distinguished from grave suspicion is not enough to frame a charge. 10. In Vijayan P. v. State of Kerala and another [ (2010) 2 SCC 398 ] the Apex Court held that the judge who considers a question where a charge is liable to be framed is not a mere Post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The judge is expected to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The judge is expected to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao [ (2023) 17 SCC 688 ] , the Apex Court held that at the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court shall proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate such materials in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on its face value disclosed the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offences alleged. 11. In the light of the law laid down in the aforementioned decisions, the materials produced by the prosecution are insufficient to presume that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged in the final report. Therefore, the charge against him would only be groundless. Hence, the impugned order declining the plea of discharge of the petitioner is set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged of the offences alleged against him in C.C.No.93 of 2016 pending before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Muvattupuzha.