ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THE order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir discharging opposite party No. 1 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') by setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balangir (in short 'the SDJM') is assailed in this revision application by the informant.

( 2 ) THE accusations which set the law into motion are as follows : opposite Party No. 1 Satyanarayan Sarangi (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was working as a clerk of the State bank of India, Balangir Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant' ). The Branch Manager of the informant-bank lodged a report in the Balangir town Police Station to the effect that on Lokanath Nepak had opened a savings bank account in the bank, and he complained about irregularities in his account. The account holder had not withdrawn Rs. 7,500/- from his account, but it was so reflected in the pass book. On receipt of information, a case under Ss. 420/467/468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (in short 'ipc') was registered and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against the accused-opposite party No. 1. The materials on which reliance was placed to implicate the accused were that the Handwriting Expert found certain words and numbers which were in his handwriting. He was working in the withdrawal counter on the date on which the withdrawal has been shown to have been made. From the statement of one Mrs. Smita Patnaik it appeared that accused entrusted her with the withdrawal voucher to make necessary entries in the accounts registers.

( 3 ) BY order dated 16-12-1986, the learned SDJM, Balangir framed charge against the opp. party No. 1 under Ss. 420/467/468, I. P. C. The said order was assailed in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir. Before the revisional Court it was primarily contended that there was absolutely no material on record to connect the opp. party No. 1 with the alleged crime. The materials on record do not justify framing of charge, as even if the materials stand unrebutted, it would not result in his conviction. Though the Handwriting Expert has opined that some portions in the withdrawal voucher were in the handwriting of the opp. party No. 1, the specimen signatures of the opp. party No. 1 did not tally with the handwriting in question as appearing in the withdrawal slip. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir, who heard the revision application was of the view that there was no material in the instant case to show that the accused was the author of the withdrawal voucher and therefore, did not sustain the charge. It was also observed that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert was not obtained after comparison of the admitted and specimen signatures of Shri Lokanath Nepak, the account holder with the handwritings appearing in the withdrawal voucher, and therefore, there was no material to show that actually the signature of Shri Nepak was forged in the withdrawal voucher. The very foundation of the allegation was set at naught by such non-comparison.

( 4 ) MR. M. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was erroneous. It was not open to him to make a threadbare analysis of the evidence and arrive at the conclusion as done. At the stage of framing charge, a very strong suspicion founded upon material which leads to form a presumptive opinion constituting the alleged offence would be sufficient. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, submits that even if the entire prosecution version was unrebutted, the same would not lead to a conclusion of complicity of the opp. party No. 1 in the offence of any kind, much less for which he was charged by the learned SDJM.

( 5 ) SECTIONS 228 and 240 of the Code deal with framing of charge. While S. 228 relates to framing of charge in respect of offences triable by Court of Session, S. 240 dea