At the stage of framing charges, the Court is not expected to deeply examine the probative value of the materials on record. The Court can frame charges if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defacto complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impleading petition in M.P.Nos. 3 & 3 of 2009 in both the Crl.R.C.Nos. 992 and 993 of 2009 are ordered and the defacto complainants have been impleaded as second respondents in both the Criminal Revisions.

2. In both the cases the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A2 and both the cases are similar in nature wherein the petitioner has been charged under Sections 466, 467, 420 read with 109 IPC. The case in C.C.No.592 of 2007 was taken on file, on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/A.Gunasekaran arrayed as second respondent in Crl.R.C.No.992 of 2009. The case in C.C.No.591 of 2007 was taken on file on the complaint given by the defacto complainant/P.Rathinam alias Rathinavel who has been arrayed as second respondent in Crl.R.C.No.993 of 2009.

3. Challenging the order dated 25.09.2009 made in Crl.M.P.No.1639 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, these two revisions have been preferred by the petitioner/A2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A2 in a case pending in C.C.No.592 of 2007 that was registered under Sections 466,467, 468, 420 read with 109 IPC. The petitioner herein had filed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the trial Court under Section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code seeking an order of discharge that was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner/A2. Aggrieved by which, these Criminal Revisions have been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Mr.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 submitted that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner, however, the court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. As per the prosecution case, during the year 1998 one E.K.Palanisamy(A1) prepared a forged Will dated 212. 1986 in the name of one Vinayathammal in his favour. The Will was registered by way of impersonation by the said co-accused, E.K.Palanisamy/A1. He had also forged a Registered Power of Attorney deed dated 28.01.1987 as if the deed was executed by the said Vinayathammal in his favour. The petitioner/A2 herein, while he was working as Tahsildar, Erode Taluk in the year 1984, based on the forged Will and the Power of Attorney Deed produced by A1, had fraudulently transferred the patta in the name of A1 on 011. 1984, without verifying the genuiness of the forged Will, Power of Attorney Deed and other connected records, and thereby the petitioner/A2 committed an offence punishable under Sections 464, 467, 468, 420 read with 109 IPC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 further submitted that the petitioner has not issued any forged or fake patta transfer certificate as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, the Deputy Tahsildar alone had the power of Transferring patta and the Tahsildar has no power to transfer the patta in the name of A1. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2, he has not committed any offence but only discharged his official duty, as per the rule prescribed in the Rules and under the standing orders. The petitioner herein attain Superannuation on 31.07.1994 and the case in Crime No.1776 of 1999 was registered by the respondent police after his retirement and after nine years of investigation, the respondent police filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode on 211. 2007. Based on the final report, the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in the case and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, summoned the petitioner/A2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 drew the attention of this Court to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and argued that there was no sanction from the Government to prosecut