( 1 ) IN Criminal Case No. 9/82 State v. Pratap Singh and others pending before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges under S. 420, I. P. C. against the accused Gyandutt s/o. Shri Ram Swaroop Zha and Pratap Singh s/o. Shri Hari Ram Panwar. The charges were read over and explained, and plea of the accused was recorded on 8-1-87. The accused, thereafter, filed a Revision Petition in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali. The Revision Petition was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali by his order 23-4-92 on the ground that there was sufficient ground for framing the charge against the accused petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Sessions Judge, Bali, the accused persons have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground that there are grounds to justify the framing of charge against them and prayed that the charge as well as subsequent proceedings be quashed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition. I have gone through the order dated 23-4-92 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bali, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali has in detail discussed the evidence collected by the Police during the investigation. The facts mentioned in the order are to the effect that on 6-12-81 one Bhanwarlal submitted a report in which he alleged that two persons who were personating themselves as Shri Panwar and Shri Sharma and who visited Falna on several occasions since 13-11-81 were contacting persons and collecting amounts from them by making mis-representations to the effect that they had been authorized by the Government to collect subscriptions for the sake of National Unity. It was also stated in the FIR that subscriptions were collected from some persons in the name of change of religion while from others subscriptions were collected by posing as an Officer of the Reserve Bank of India. According to FIR the amount collected was more than Rs. 3,000 and it was collected from 16 Institutions and the culprits were staying in Room No. 20 of the Bholeshwar Dharamshala and that on being interrogated they admitted that they committed mistake by collecting money. On the basis of the FIR investigation was started. During investigation receipts issued by the petitioners were collected on those receipts the words were printed. At the time of arrest of petitioner Shri Gyandutt and Shri Pratap Singh, receipt books were recovered. During investigation Bhanwarlal, Omprakash, Dilip Singh, Arun Choudhary, Deveraj, Panne Singh, Hari Ram, Jai Ram, Hastimal, Chagan Lal, Nathu Bhai, Mohan Raj, Ghisulal, Bheru Mal, Mohammad Sabir, Narsingh, Bhadur Singh were examined. The order of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bali, shows that the evidence given by the above named persons prima facie disclosed that the petitioners obtained money by false representation and that they made ex-judicial confessions.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that those persons who paid money to the petitioners by way of subscriptions and can legally recover their money from the petitioners and, therefore, prima facie no offence has been committed by the petitioners. I am afraid this argument has no legs to stand. Every civilised society is based upon certain basic norms of conduct. One of these norms is the norm relating to honesty which in broader sense means that no person shall try, to obtain and enjoy or make use of any property which belongs to another and does not belong to him unless the acquisition, possession and enjoyment thereof is in accordance with the norms of conduct established by the society. Honestly in this sense is founded upon legal rights of the citizen to own, possess and enjoy their properties and in view of Art. 300 (A) of the Indian Constitution, no person can be deprived of his property without the authority of law. Honesty in