( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-1-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhabua in Cr. R. No. 49 of 1984 whereby the order passed by the J. M. F. C. , Alirajpur in Cr. Case No. 393/84 discharging the applicant in respect of offences under sections 409, 467 and 420, Indian Penal Code has been set aside and it has been directed that charge under section 409 read with either section 109 or section 120b ibid be framed against him.

( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this revision petition are these: On complaints having been received that in the office of the District Organisor, Tribal Welfare, Alirajpur, Criminal breach of trust has been committed in respect of transactions relating to repairs of iron cots and repairs of electric fittings in the hostels. Enquiry was made by the Project Officer. He found that complaints were true. In addition, he found that there has been criminal breach of trust also in relation to the transactions relating to preparation of sign boards. He, accordingly, submitted his report to the Collector, Jhabua who wrote to the S. P. , Jhabua for necessary action to be taken against the offenders.

( 3. ) ON the basis of the reports of the Project Officer, Crime No. 42/83 was registered at P. S. , Alirajpur and investigation was set afoot.

( 4. ) ON the completion of the investigation, the present petitioner who was Block Development Officer, Alirajpur, together with R. K. Joshi, District Organisor, Tribunal Welfare, Alirajpur; Harish Trivedi, Hostel Supdt. , Chichalgura; Patalsingh, Hostel Supdt. , Alirajpur; Sub-Engineer P. N. Khode and Asstt. Accounts Officer V. R. Sonone were found involved in the crime. By the time charge-sheet could be presented, the last two had died and the other 4 alone were prosecuted.

( 5. ) THE aforesaid criminal case was eventually registered in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Alirajpur and in the exercise of his powers under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the code) considering the charges against the present petitioner and R. K. Joshi to be groundless, he discharged them. The State, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision petition in the Court of Session, Jhabua. The learned Sessions Judge had disposed of the said revision by the impugned order.

( 6. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in no way involved in the crime and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

( 7. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. On a careful consideration of the submissions made and of the material on record, I find that the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. ( 8. ) IT is clear from the decision in C. S. Mfg. Co. s case, AIR 1972sc 545 that the order framing charge does substantially affect the persons liberty and the Court must, therefore, apply its judicial mind to the entirety of the facts and circumstances in a given case for coming to a conclusion one or the other. ( 9. ) IN a criminal trial the accused has the shield of presumptive innocence around him. Barring offences where the Legislature, in public interest, excludes mens rea as a constituent of the crime and makes the criminal liability absolute, actus reus (unlawful act) and mens rea (guilty mind) both must concur to constitute the crime. Therefore, before any charge may be framed against any accused in respect of any offence under the Penal Code, it is for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the material on record makes out a prima facie case against him or that it is such that it gives rise to a strong suspicion that he has committed the crime in question in all its ingredients.

( 10. ) IT may be pointed out that conjectures and surmises cannot constitute the material contemplated as furnishing ground for framing of charge.

( 11. ) IT has to be remembered that mere negligence in the discharge of duty cannot give rise to criminal liability it is a differen