Judgment : The accused in C.C.Nos.539 and 540 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ponneri, has filed this petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing all further proceedings in the aforesaid two cases. .2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner in CC.No.539 of 1989 on the allegations that the petitioner/accused was Treasurer of the Gummidipoondi Panchayat Union Public Servants Co-operative Society that in his capacity as Treasurer of the said society he was authorised by resolution No.127, dated 11. 1978 and resolution No.142, dated 11. 1978 to appoint sales helpers to the society and pay the remuneration as prescribed in the said resolutions that in the year 1978 in violation of the said directions, by not appointing any sales helpers, prepared vouchers dated 2. 1978, 4. 1978, 24. 1978 and 212. 1978 as if salaries have been paid from the said society to one Rajamani for his services in the said society and thereby dishonestly misappropriated a total sum of Rs.322 and converted the same for his own use and thereby committed offence under Sec.409, I.P.C. and in committing the offence of criminal breach of trust of Rs.322 the accused falsified the records in such a way making false entries in the cash book and preparing false vouchers, as if the said amounts have been paid from the said society to one Rajamani and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.477-A, I.P.C 3. In CC.No.540 of 1989 the respondent has filed charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Secs.409 and 477-A, I.P.C. on the allegations that on312. 1979 the accused, in his capacity as cashier of the society committed an offence of criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating a sum of Rs.505.30, as if two tables have been purchased for the said amount to the said society as new ones and prepared false voucher No.190 dated 312. 1979 and hence converted the said amount for his own use and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.409, I.P.C. and in committing the said offence, he falsified the records of the society by making false entries in the cash book dated 312. 1979 and prepared a false voucher No.190, dated 312. 1979 and hence converted the said amount for his own use and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.409, I.P.C. and in committing the said offence, he falsified the records of the society by making false entries in the cash book dated 312. 1979 and prepared a false voucher No.190, dated 312. 1979, as if the amount of Rs.505.30 has been paid for the purpose of purchasing the two tables for the said society and thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Sec.477-A, I.P.C. .4. Mr.R. Subramania Aiyar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was Honorary Treasurer of the society that the petitioner and other office bearers of the society were surcharged for these two items and other items that against the same can appeal was preferred before the special tribunal and after enquiry, the special tribunal had exonerated the petitioner and other office bearers of the society of all the items of surcharge and that these two items regarding which these two charge-sheets were filed were also considered by the learned special tribunal and the petitioner was exonerated with regard to those two items. The learned counsel would submit that in as much as now the very same items are the subject matter of these two chargesheets, the petitioner was to undergo again another ordeal and that cannot be permitted. He would further submit that ten years have passed since the date of the alleged commission of the offence to the date of filing of these charge sheets. It is his further submission that the very same material on which the special tribunal and given its finding these charge-sheets were laid and no new materials were placed before the criminal court and that the very same witnesses examined in the surcharge proceedings and regarding whose evidence the special tribunal had already given its findings are the witnesses cited in the charge sheets and they are not going to place any fresh evidence before the criminal court and in as much as on the materials already placed before the special tribunal, it had given a finding in favour of the petitioner, there is no necessity to undergo the ordeal of another trial by examining the very same witnesses and adducing the very same evidence. I have heard Mr.Shanmughavelayutham the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspects. 5. I have heard Mr.Shanmughavelayutham the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspects. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. The petitioner is the Honorary Treasurer of the society. The petitioner and others were surcharged for these two items covered by these charge sheets and for some other items. On appeal before the special tribunal, the learned tribunal and exonerated them of all the items. The very same witnesses examined in the surcharged proceedings are cited in these charge sheets. But yet the surcharge proceedings and appeals thereon and findings of the appellate court exonerating them of these items would not operate as a bar to launching of the criminal proceedings. As has been pointed out by Mr.R. Shanmughavelayutham, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that surcharge proceedings are for recovery of money and one of civil nature; whereas the criminal proceedings are penal in nature and exoneration in the surcharge proceedings does not prohibit the prosecution for criminal offence. Though ten years have passed, it is not the case that the offences are barred by time. So I am unable to accept any of the submissions made by Mr.R. Subramania Aiyar. 6. In the proceedings under Sec.482, Crl.P.C.1 have to confine myself to the allegations made in the charge sheet and find whether the ingredients making out the offence are stated there. If the materials on which those charge sheets were filed does not disclose the necessary ingredients, then alone this court can intervene in exercise of the powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. That is not the case here. Thus, viewing the cases from any angle, I am unable to find any ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. Hence both the petitions fail and shall stand dismissed.