Judgment :- 1. The two petitions under S.482 of the Code raise a common question and are accordingly disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioner seeks to quash charges in CC. Nos. 36 & 37 of 1987 on the file of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge. Trivandrum. in so far as they relate to him. There is another accused in C.C. No 36 of 1987. Charges are under S.409 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code and S.5 (2) read with S. S (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. and these are in respect of events. alleged to have taken place in 1977. Petitioner retired from service on 30-4-1978. Crime was registered on 26-9-1979. Sanction was obtained on 4-7-1984. and charge sheet was filed on 3-9-1984. 3. Petitioner contends that proceedings are barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on R.3 of Part III of Kerala Service Rules. R.3 sub rule (c) reads: "(c) No such judicial proceeding. if not Instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. shall be instituted. in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four yean before such institution." Explanation (b) to R.3-sub rule (c)-reads: "(i) in the case of criminal proceeding. on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made;" 4. R.3 reserves the right in the Government to withhold pension or withdraw pension or a part thereof. if in a departmental or judicial proceeding a pensioner is found guilty. Departmental proceedings are dealt with under R.3 (b). R.3 (c) deals with judicial proceedings. No judicial proceedings shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action. four years prior to such institution. Expression 'institution' is defined in explanation (b) to R.3-sub rule (c)-as noticed above. 5. Position therefore is that no judicial proceeding shall be instituted after four years of the alleged cause of action. and instituting is deemed to mean on making of complaint or report by police officer. Back to facts. Alleged acts are in 1977. Petitioner retired on 30-4-1978. Charge sheet was filed on 3-9-1984. four years after the cause of action (1977) and retirement. For this reason. counsel for petitioner would submit that proceedings are barred by limitation. 6. and instituting is deemed to mean on making of complaint or report by police officer. Back to facts. Alleged acts are in 1977. Petitioner retired on 30-4-1978. Charge sheet was filed on 3-9-1984. four years after the cause of action (1977) and retirement. For this reason. counsel for petitioner would submit that proceedings are barred by limitation. 6. Public Prosecutor submitted that the rule deals only with pension and recovery thereof. and not with criminal proceedings. True. caption to Part III shows that the chapter deals with pension. But. the clear language of the rule. leaves no room for doubt. that it deals with other matters as well. Clearly the rule refers to criminal proceedings. Rule also incorporates provisions of limitation. Explanation (b) (i) to R.3 (c) states that a criminal proceeding will be deemed to be instituted on a particular event; and R.3 (c) states that no such judicial proceeding shall be instituted four years after the cause of action. The only reasonable way of understanding the rule is to understand it as incorporating a provision of limitation in respect of a judicial proceeding. The plain language of the rule must be given effect to. Statute cannot be read out. Draftsman must heed the counsel of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen: "In drafting. it is not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith can understand. but it is necessary to attain. if possible. a degree of precision which a person reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand." (Lex Gentium. Lex then and now) 7. Special Judge thought that provisions of Service Rules. cannot override provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Otherwise put. according to Sessions Judge. these are self-contained and other provisions of law cannot control them. The view is unsustainable. Situations are familiar. where criminal proceedings are governed by provisions in other Statutes. For example. provisions relating to sanction contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act. govern cognizance. Likewise. by reason of S.20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. no court shall take cognizance except on a complaint by the Food Inspector. Again. under S.137 of the Customs Act. no Court shall take cognizance of offences under S.132 to 135. except with previous sanction of Collector of Customs. S.55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972. is another instance in paint. no court shall take cognizance except on a complaint by the Food Inspector. Again. under S.137 of the Customs Act. no Court shall take cognizance of offences under S.132 to 135. except with previous sanction of Collector of Customs. S.55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972. is another instance in paint. Argument that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to cognizance. are not amenable to external restrictions. must therefore fail. 8. Kerala Service Rules are referable to Art.309 of the Constitution of India. and are deemed to have been issued under the Kerala Public Services Act. These provisions have force. springing forth from a fountain of Constitutional authority. 9. A suggestion was made that cognizance was taken within the prescribed period. When cognizance was taken. is really not material because. limitation is with reference to the date of 'institution'. Cognizance can be only after institution (filing of Police Report). 10. Cognizance is taken in different ways. S.190 deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrate. S. 193 deals with cognizance of offences by Courts of Session. Special Judge though a Sessions Judge. is not governed by S.193. S.8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act states that a Special Judge may take cognizance of offences without the accused being committed. for trial. Cognizance could. therefore. be only in accordance with one of the modes under S.190 of the Code. S.190 on its plain language deals only with Magistrate. But. by incorporation. Special Judge would come within the purview of S.190. Position is now settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another. (AIR 1984 SC 718). Supreme Court. considering the question of cognizance by the Special Judge on a private complaint said: "It is idle to say that S.190 is confined to Magistrates. and Special Judge is not a Magistrate. The Special Judge can take cognizance of offences upon a complaint or upon a police report." 11. Institution itself is on the filing of police report. en 3-9-1984. for that is what explanation (b) (i) to R.3 (c) states. Proceeding therefore was clearly beyond the period of limitation. It is not necessary to consider. the alternate argument that institution of proceedings seven years after the petitioner's retirement is abuse of process of Court. The amount involved is small. Retirement benefits of petitioner are held up. en 3-9-1984. for that is what explanation (b) (i) to R.3 (c) states. Proceeding therefore was clearly beyond the period of limitation. It is not necessary to consider. the alternate argument that institution of proceedings seven years after the petitioner's retirement is abuse of process of Court. The amount involved is small. Retirement benefits of petitioner are held up. and loss caused to him by way of interest he would have earned. would be far more than the amount alleged to be mis-appropriated. Such delays should be obviated. A prosecution. which should merit a conviction. could be barred. As far as accused is concerned. long delay can amount to harassment. Rights under Art.21 of the Constitution also may be invaded. Authorities will do well to finalise proceedings against retired employees or retiring employees without undue delay. because it amounts to hardship to a person in the evening of his life. It must be ensured that an employee should not be subjected to harassment. for leasers attributable to administrative machinery. In the result. charges in CC. 36 of 1987 and CC 37 of 1987 en the file of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge. Trivandrum to the extent they relate to the petitioner are quashed. I record appreciation of the help rendered by Shri M.N. Sukumaran Nair as amicus curiae.