JUDGMENT 1. This case to some shape or other came before this Court on two occasions and, on the last occasion; the Appellants were Babu Thakur Pershad Singh and Babu Tribeni Singh, two of the 4 accused persons. They applied to this Court for quashing the proceedings against them under sees. 465/109 468 and 471 of the Code. The matter came before the Bench as at present constituted and we came to the conclusion that the proceedings should be quashed. The reasons which we then gave were that the proceedings were commenced on the complaint of the Government pleader who had no personal knowledge of the matters contained in the proceedings and that the judicial inquiry that was made contained nothing substantial against the two Petitioners then before us. The present petition is by the first accused Chamroo Sahu and the petition is based on substantially the same grounds as those urged before us by the other two Defendants, Babu Thakur Pershad Singh and Babu Tribeni Singh. 2. The proceedings were commenced on the complaint of the Government pleader and he had no personal knowledge of the affair. The judicial enquiry resulted in a finding to the effect that Chamroo Sahu was guilty of forging the table of rates. But there are no materials on which the judicial inquiry is based so far as we can gather. 3. Apart from this, there was no complaint under sec. 200, Cr. P. C, properly so called on which a judicial enquiry could be directed. The proceedings were irregular. We, therefore, set them aside and direct that if the Megistrate so desires proceedings be commenced on a complaint made in accordance with the form as well as the spirit of sec 200 of the Code. It does not appear to us, however, that there is any person capable now of making a complaint, However that is a matter for the Magistrate to consider. All that we can do at presaut is to quash the proceedings as they have been framed.