This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.5.93 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Tuensang in OR Case No. 74/92. 2. In this case, rule was issued on 12.4.94 and a notice was issued to the respondents No. 1 and 2. Office note dated 3.5.94 indicates that the service of notice upon respondents 1 and 2 was duly served, however none appear for the respondents. Lower Court records have been received and perused the same. 3. The genesis of the prosecution story may be briefly recited. On 16.7.92, a complaint was lodged by Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Office to OC, Tuensang Police Station to the effect that the accused BN Pant and accused SC Kakati misappropriated the Government's money to the tune of Rs. 88,688.26 and requested to take necessary action. On the basis of the afore­said complaint, Tuensang PS Case No. 7 (7) 92 under section 409 IPC was registered and investigated upon. On completion of investigation, a prima facie case was established, against the accused persons and the IO submitted charge sheet on 2.9.92. From the order, it appears no further progress was made in the trial after the submission of the charge sheet. However, on 11.5.93, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Tuensang after examining the accused under section 313 of CrPC has disposed of the GR Case 74/92 on merit showing leniency to both the accused by directing them to deposit the misappropriated money within a period of one and half years on monthly installment basis. 4. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned ADC (J) also directed the authority to revoke the suspension order of the accused persons and reinstate them in their services to able them to deposit the amount on monthly installment basis. The learned ADC (J) was of the view that there was an agreement entered into between the accuseds and the complainant on 10.7.92 that the accuseds would deposit the misappropriated amount within 30 days wef 10.7.92 to 10.2.93 to the Sub-Divisional Post Master, Tuensang. The learned ADC (J) was therefore, of the view that before the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days, the complainant has lodged the criminal complaint in writing. Accor­ding to the learned ADC (J) the aforesaid action of the complainant was improper because the complaint was lodged before the expiry of 30 days. 5. It is contended by Mr. The learned ADC (J) was therefore, of the view that before the expiry of the stipulated period of 30 days, the complainant has lodged the criminal complaint in writing. Accor­ding to the learned ADC (J) the aforesaid action of the complainant was improper because the complaint was lodged before the expiry of 30 days. 5. It is contended by Mr. EY Renthungo, that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below is unknown to the law inasmuch as no charge sheet has been framed in accordance with law and no trial was initiated, but on the other hand, the accused persons were purportedly have been examined under section 313 of CrPC and on the basis of which the learned ADC (J) disposed of the criminal case by directing the accused persons to deposit the misappro­priated amount as aforesaid. 6. Before I advert to the other points, I may at this stage say that, it is shocking to notice that a person who is entrusted with the administration of justiee, that too, a Judicial Officer of a senior cadre in the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) could have passed such an order in a grave offence charged under section 409 IPC. I say this, because on perusal of the record, the learned ADC (J) himself has found the accused persons guilty of the offence. 7. There is also other circumstances which clearly established a prima facie case against the accuseds. This apart, from the record, it appears that both the accuseds have confessed their guilt before the learned Magistrate, Tuensang. Even on the face of this hard facts appearing against the accused persons, the learned ADC (J) instead of starting the trial and impose a puni­shment in accordance with law, have allowed them to escape unpunished by directing them to deposit the misappropriated amount. Such a grave offence committed by public servant itself deserved deterrent punishment in accor­dance with law, However, this has not been done in the instant case in violation of all canons of law. Definitely, the Judicial Officer of grade of Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) cannot plead ignorance of law. Such a grave offence committed by public servant itself deserved deterrent punishment in accor­dance with law, However, this has not been done in the instant case in violation of all canons of law. Definitely, the Judicial Officer of grade of Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) cannot plead ignorance of law. 8 It is well established principle of law that in an offence under section 409 of the IPC where the facts and circumstances of the case clearly esta­blished that there was embezlement of Government money by the accused inasmuch as the accused had put to personal use the Government money entrusted to him, instead of depositing the same in the proper place, the fact that the accused refunded the amount when the act of defalcation came to be discovered does not absolve him of the offence committed oy him. See Vishwa Nath vs. State of J & K, AIR 1983 SC 174 and Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India, AIR 1959 SC 1390 . 9. Keeping in view of the aforesaid established principle of law, the judgment and order dated 11.5.93 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J>, Tuensang in OR Case No. 74/92 is unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it may not be safe to remit this case again to the same Court for trial. In exercise of power under section 407 of the CrPC, I direct that Tuensang PS Case No. 7 (7) 92 under section 409 IPC corresponding to OR Case No.74/92 shall stand transferred from the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner(J Tuensang to the Court of learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J) Mokokchung. The learned ADC (J) Mokokchung shall now receive the GR Case No.74/92 to its file and proceed with the trial afresh in accordance with law. 11. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court records along with a copy of this order to the Court of learned ADC (J) Mokokchung forthwith. 12. Let a copy of judgment of this Court and the judgment and order dated 11.5.93 passed by the learned ADC (J) Tuensang in GR Case No.74/92 be furnished to the Secretary, Law Department with a direction to place a copy of this judgment in the personal file of Shri Lanu Walling learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Tuensang. 13. 12. Let a copy of judgment of this Court and the judgment and order dated 11.5.93 passed by the learned ADC (J) Tuensang in GR Case No.74/92 be furnished to the Secretary, Law Department with a direction to place a copy of this judgment in the personal file of Shri Lanu Walling learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Tuensang. 13. With the aforesaid direction, this revision petition is allowed. It is made clear that the learned ADC(J), Mokokchuog shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court. Keeping in view that this case has been pending since 1992 the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Mokokchung is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record.