Gupta, J. -- 1. By this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) applicant has challenged the order/judgment dated 26.8.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No.205/2010 whereby the charges of offence punishable under section 409 of IPC, sections 467, 468, 471 read with section 120(B) of IPC and sections 5 and 6 of the M.P. Vinirdhist Brashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 have been framed against the applicant.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the police has registered a case under sections 409, 467 read with section 120(B), section 468 read with section 120(b), section 471 read with section 120(B) of IPC and under sections 5 and 6 of the M.P. Vinirdhist Brashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 against the applicant and one another stating that on 1.3.2008 forged muster roll has been created in respect of the newly constructed pond in Village Mohrai and the applicant was entrusted with amount and wheat and the same has not been paid and thus misappropriated 100.42 quintals of wheat and Rs.1,11,884/- and also created forged muster roll showing false entries in muster roll. Thus, they have forged the valuable security and used those documents as genuine documents knowingly the document is forged and committed corruption.

3. The police after completing the investigation submitted challan before the Court below and during the investigation the prosecution recorded statements of the witnesses. The case was committed to the Session Court and thereafter the Session Court after considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, framed the charges against the applicant under sections 409 of IPC, sections 467, 468, 471 read with section 120(B) of IPC and also framed charges under sections 5 and 6 of the M.P. Vinirdhist Brashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 vide order/judgment dated 26.8.2015.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is no evidence available on record against the applicant for framing of charge under Sections 409 of IPC, sections 467, 468, 471 read with section 120(B) of IPC and under sections 5 and 6 of the M.P. Vinirdhist Brashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982. Learned counsel aruged that the applicant has no concerned with the distribution of the wheat to the labour and also he has no concern with the payment of the labour. Learned counsel further submits that the Collector, Shivpuri has conducted the enquiry and vide order dated 4.3.2008 the authority held that the applicant cannot be held guilty and it is further submitted that during the departmental enquiry the statement of M.C. Sonkal was recorded, who admitted that the payment has been made by the Sarpanch or member of Panchayat. And also in the revaluation report it has been mentioned that the valuation done by the applicant is correct. Learned counsel further submits that along with challan the original documents were not filed and in the order-sheet dated 9.10.2012 the Session Court observed on the basis of report that the related cash book and other original documents were not on record. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Court below failed to consider the nature of the evidence recorded by the police and documents produced before the Court below and mere suspicion alone without anything else cannot form basis of charge against the applicant, and therefore, is not sufficient to frame the charges. Learned counsel submits that the additional papers filed by the applicant were not considered by the Court below. Learned counsel further submits that no prima facie case to frame the charge is made out against the applicant and also there is no legal evidence available against the applicant. To Bolster his submissions learned counsel relied on the judgments in the case of Vesa Holding P. Ltd and another v. State of Kerala and others [2015 CrLJ 2455], and Umesh Mandloi v. Stat