Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.230 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Earnakulam. The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. With an allegation that on 13.12.2002, the revision petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, M.G.Road branch after pleading 3.501 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.330/12 of Elamkulam village, which was obtained by the revision petitioner by virtue D.No.4287/02. As per the allegations in the charge sheet, the said property was earlier mortgaged before the State Bank of Travancore, Panampilly Nagar branch and he availed a loan of Rs.4,70,000/-. It is suppressing that liability and fraudulently making the defacto complainant, the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, M.G. Road branch believe that there was no liability charged upon the properties the revision petitioner obtained the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- and that after closing the liability in favour of the S.B.T., the property was sold to third parties without the knowledge of the bank.

2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance. Issued process to the revision petitioner. On his appearance, after furnishing the copy of the charge sheet and connected records the revision petitioner and the prosecution were heard and framed charge for offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC.

3. Contending that there is no prima facie material to send the revision petitioner for trial for offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC. and that the charge framed is without any allegation regarding the ingredients of the above said offence, the revision petitioner seeks an order to quash the impugned charge.

4. The revision petitioner and the public prosecutor were heard. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the memorandum of revision.

5. The law was put in motion upon the basis of a statement given by CW1, the Chief Manager, State Bank of India. According to him, he came to know that on the basis of a duplicate document the revision petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.Ten Lakhs and thereby the revision petitioner cheated the bank. It is also stated that the revision petitioner suppressed the factum of availing a loan from State Bank of Travancore after pleading the original document. However, there is no mention in the first information statement that the revision petitioner made the defacto complainant believe that there was no liability charged upon the property which was offered as security. In his further statement also there is no such whisper. What is stated is that the duplicate copy of the document and other connected records were produced by the revision petitioner and it was sent for legal scrutiny of the panel lawyer and no defacto noticed and the loan was granted. At the same time he would admit that there was no ban for granting loan on the basis of a duplicate copy of the document.

6. The 2nd witness in the charge (CW2)was the officer who sanctioned the loan. In his statement it is mentioned that the loan was granted after perusing all the documents. According to him, the loan was granted on the belief that the documents produced are original. In his statement also there is no mention that the revision petitioner fraudulently made the witness believe that there was no liability charged upon the property offered as security or that there was any fraudlent inducement to part with money. There is no mention that had he been aware of the earlier liability, the loan in dispute wouldn’t have been granted. No other witness cited by the prosecution mention about the nature of the transaction. The statement of the above witness, even if taken at its face value wouldn’t constitute offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC. No fraudulent or dishonest inducement to part with money is alleged. At the most what can be inferred is lack of vigil in scrutinizing the