1. By this common judgment, petition filed under Section 561A Cr. P.C. ( CR.M.C. No.248/2010 and two Revision petitions bearing Nos. 63/2010 and D-21/2011 are being disposed of as all these petitions are directed against the same order dated 16.07.2010 passed by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu.

2. In CRR 63/2010, petitioner SHANTI DEVI seeks quashing of order dated 16.07.2010 and the charge sheet framed vide dated 06.08.2010. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.07.2010, petitioner-Shanti Devi challenges the same on the grounds; that the learned Trial court has not felt necessary to formulate the questions of legal import and the important facts out of the prosecution evidence u/s 161 Cr.P.C. There is no evidence on record that the accused officials in abuse of their official positions conferred undue pecuniary advantage to themselves and to the petitioner and corresponding loss to the state exchequer; that the petitioner has served the Deptt. For about seven years and her attendance was recorded continuously in the sub centre Ratnal till 11.11.2003; that the prosecution has failed to know the whereabouts of the alleged Shanti devi W/o Chuha Ram. In the case of the petitioner, there is no other Shanti Devi who has ever worked on the post. The court below has not considered that whether the accused petitioner was inserted fraudulently and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. And whether the alleged Shanti Devi w/o Chua Ram was alive at the time of issuance of order of recommendation by CMO and further when the order of appointment of the petitioner was issued by the then Director Health Services Jammu; that the court below has also not considered the fact whether Dr. B.B. Sharma BMO Bishnah allowed the petitioner to join at Sub-centre Ratnal (Bishnah) vide his order No.153 dated 26-05-1997 and orders No.136 San 137 dated 21-05-1997 without verifying the facts that ETS of similar name but different parentage was already working in Sub-centre Ratnal; that the court below has similarly not considered the fact that the list referred by CMO vide his No. E-1/86 dated 17-04-1997 to the DHS does not contain the husband’s name or parentage of the petitioner; that the Learned Judge has given the effect of this fact only to the three official involved in the case and has ignored the innocent poor petitioner Safaiwala; that the investigating officer has opted not to seize the original list and the record pertaining to the engagement and service of the alleged Shanti Devi W/o Chuha Ram. Besides he has also not seized the record allegedly furnished by CMO from the office of the DHS and as such no material whatsoever has been collected to show that the date of birth of the alleged Shanti Devi and the petitioner actually working in the field is other than the date of birth shown against their names in the list. While discharging the CMO concerned, the Ld. Judge has satisfied himself that none of the incumbents including the petitioner was ever called in his office and has collected their bio-data because there is no material on record; that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, her regularization order has been issued on 25-04-1997. There is no complaint filed by any person as the petitioner herein, before any of the officials or the police agency. The Ld. Court below has on the one hand stated that at the stage of framing charge the court has to see that the material on record and the ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence but on the other hand without furnishing any material on record and without finding the fact of alleged 2nd Shanti Devi W/o Chuha Ram in existence officially or physically still the petitioner has put to charge which is neither legal nor correct to the facts and circumstances of the case; that the service record of the petitioner categorically reveals that she had served the Dept., signed the attendance register and received the salary with her signatures. As such the p