At the time of framing of charges, the court cannot be concerned with the possible defences which are available to the accused. At the initial stage, the court is merely concerned to see if a strong prima facie case is made out against the offender or not.

1. - Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 05.10.2007, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge while accepting the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, has quashed and set aside the order dated 12.02.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisalmer, wherein the learned Magistrate had framed the charges for offences under Section 420, 409 IPC against the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal. Thus, both the petitions are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. Taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.317/2011, the brief facts are that on 05.04.2000 at about 1:00 PM, one Ghanshyam Das Singhal, the then Tehsildar (Colonization), Mohangarh, had lodged a written report at Police Station Mohangarh, Jaisalmer, wherein he alleged that the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, while serving as Patwari, Patwar Mandal Manda B, had received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner on 17.03.1999 for depositing against his instalment for land at Chak 2 MGD without giving a pakka receipt. However, he gave a hand written kachhi receipt under his signature for Rs. 10,000/-. He told the petitioner that Pakka receipts were not available. However, the respondent No.2 did not deposit the said amount with the Government.

3. Upon the said complaint, the Police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.41/2000 for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC before the trial court. Vide order dated 12.02.2007, the trial court framed the charges for offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the appellate court. Vide order dated 05.10.2007, the learned appellate court while accepting the revision petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 12.02.2007. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. Mr. I.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.317/2011, and Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for the State, in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.856/2008, have raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to the complainant, he had clearly stated that the respondent No.2, Ratan Lal, was working as a Patwari at the relevant time to whom he had given Rs. 10,000/- Although a "Pakka Rasid" was not given by respondent No.2, but a "Kachhi Rasid" was given clearly indicating that the respondent No.2 had accepted Rs. 10,000/- as instalment for payment of rent in the canal area. Moreover, the said "Kachhi Rasid" was sent to the FSL and the FSL had opined that it is an authentic document signed by the respondent No.2. Furthermore, the prosecution has also brought in evidence that during the course of departmental inquiry, the respondent No.2 had admitted the fact that he had accepted Rs. 10,000/- as payment of the land revenue. However, despite all these glaring facts available, the learned Judge has still discharged the respondent No.2. Secondly, the learned Judge has over4 stepped his jurisdiction as he has entered into the realm of defence that can be taken by the respondent No.2. At the time of framing of the charge, the court cannot go into a meticulous examination of the evidence. Moreover, the court is not concerned with the issue whether the trial will eventually end in conviction or not. For, at the initial stage of framing of the charge, the court is concerned only with seeing if a strong prima facie case does exist pointing out to the possibility that the offence has been committed by the accused-respondent or not ? Since the learned Judge has entered into the realm of defence, he has clearly overstepped his jurisdiction.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Farzand Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has strenuously contended that the pro