JUDGMENT This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceed lire. It arises in this way. A Special Case No. 4/88 was tried by the Special Judge Mandleshwar against the accused Narendra Singh. In this case, the petitioner figured as a material witness. In this case while appreciating the evidence, the learned Special Judge found the conduct of the petitioner impeachable and directed the Collector Khargone to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner. The State aggrieved by the acquittal in the aforesaid case on 29.7.88 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 544/88 in this Court and prayed for leave. This leave was refused by this Court on, 28.2.1989. In the elaborate order refusing the relief and dismissing the proposed appeal this Court vide para 4 of the order observed as under:- "On these evidence, the trial Court carne to the conclusion and rightly so that the Food Inspector was telling a lie and was, therefore, disbelieved. The Trial Court also observed that the Food Inspector as a corrupt public servant, falsely implicated the accused in the case, and as a corrupt public servant he sought donation of two vapor lamps from the accused respondents. The Trial Court recommended that the Collector of the District should enquire into the conduct of such a corrupt public servant". The present petition is riled with a prayer that adverse remarks incorporated in the judgment of acquittal be expunged. The petitioner-Food Inspector-public-servant is aggrieved by the adverse remarks contained in the judgment of acquittal as noted above. He asserts that the remarks, bitter and biting, delivers him immense harm in terms of his reputation. The remarks impugned herein are subvertible and deciduous, urges the counsel. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that this exercise is one of futility in that remarks were maintained by this Court in the aforesaid appeal and no error was seen. The principal contention, on behalf of the petitioner is, however, that he was not heard at the stage of either passing the impugned remarks or at the stage of State appeal maintaining the same. It is urged that he has material to show that his conduct was fault- free. This, however, should not detain us here as in that enquiry the petitioner can prove his side of the case. It is urged that he has material to show that his conduct was fault- free. This, however, should not detain us here as in that enquiry the petitioner can prove his side of the case. It cannot be gain-said that there is a doctrine of issue-estoppel even in Criminal Cases (Lalta and others v. The State of U.P.: AIR 1970 SC 1381 :). Moreover, in Administration of Justice, there has to be a point of finality. In The Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. The Income-tax Officer ( AIR 1977 SC 429 ). it is held that:- "At the same time, it must be born in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings." Aware of the impediment, even the petitioner had taken time to decide about initiation of appropriate proceedings in the Apex Court as is indicated in the order-sheet dated 25.8.92 and 14.10.92. This petition, however, hibernated even thereafter. The curtain must then be finally drawn. There is no scope what- so-ever to lift the lambrequin in the present proceedings. The petitioner can have his say in the enquiry as was directed and as observed above. In the result, this petition is, in the face of the aforesaid position, devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. AIR 1976 SC 1381 and AIR 1977 SC 429 followed.