VIJENDER JAIN ( 1 ) I have observed in the last order dated 8. 3. 95. that B. S. Kohli was posted in Dubai in the year 1979 and on his return from Dubai he was prosecuted under Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec 104 Indian Penal Code. Case was instituted against him on 31. 8. 85. On 10. 8. 87 accused was declared proclaimed offender the thereafter his proper was attached ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that since then the whereabouts of the accused are not known In this connection a notice was issued to the SHO of the concerned police station stating inter alia. that the whereabouts of the accused were not heard The notice was sent on 13 6. 85 by the counsel of the accused. In reply to the said notice reply purported to have been written by SHO P. S. Moti Bagh has been filed that B S. Kohli was not traced in spite of best efforts made to trace and no information was received from any Police Station and other sources that he is no more. nor his whereabouts could be established. ( 3 ) AFTER a lapse of 7 years wife and daughter of the accused B. S. Kohli filed a petition in the court of Special Judge stating inter alia. that as the accused has not been heard for the last 7 years the case against him abates. In support of his contention against him abates. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in terms of Ss 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if a person is not heard of by the near relations who in normal course of relationship could hear about the person being dead or alive in such cases the onus will lie on the party who alleges that such person is alive. ( 4 ) MR. CHADHA has contended that as far as the wife and family members are concerned they had made concerted efforts to trace the accused. ( 4 ) MR. CHADHA has contended that as far as the wife and family members are concerned they had made concerted efforts to trace the accused. The information that he is not traceable was given to the police authorities who have also shown their inability to trace out the petitioner and the natural outcome would follow from the provisions of Sec. 108 of the Evidence Act that the accused is deemed to be dead. In support of his case Mr. Chadha has cited Ramrati Kuer vs. Dwarika Prasad Singh and others. AIR 1967 SC 1134 . ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Lal learned counsel for Sec. 108 of the Act what is contemplated under that who in the normal and ordinary course of circumstance would have heard about the person and have not heard for 7years then presumption will be in favour of the person being dead but for that Mr. Lal has contended that the petitioner ought to have filed a civil suit for declaration under the provisions of Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act and should get a decree of declaration to that effect. Mr. Lal has contended that it may be that after this court quashes the order of the Special Judge the accused may again surface in view of the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of its being abated or account of the death of the accused. ( 6 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Sec. 108 of the Act is as follows : "burden of proving that person is alive who has not been-heard of for seven years - (Provided that when) the question is whether a man is alive or dead. and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is (shifted to) the person who affirms it. " ( 7 ) FROM the plain language of Sec. 108 of the Act. what is required under Sec. 108 is not the proof which has to be given by the person who is claiming that the person is dead or has not been heard of for last 7 years. " ( 7 ) FROM the plain language of Sec. 108 of the Act. what is required under Sec. 108 is not the proof which has to be given by the person who is claiming that the person is dead or has not been heard of for last 7 years. A person is not to file a suit for declaration to this effect. After report of disappearance was lodged with the police, the report of the police that person is untraceable given sufficient indication that person is either dead or non-traceable as far as the present case is concerned. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for both the parties have also placed reliance on Ramrati Kuer s case (supra) which, in my opinion, helps the case of the petitioner and not the case of respondent. ( 9 ) I have also in the court inquired from the learned counsel for CBI as to whether respondent would like to make investigation with respondent would like to make investigation with regard to the factum of the death of B. S. Kohli, but the respondent has showed his helplessness in finding about the truth. On account of this I am further fortified in my observations that no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings ins the trial court. This court is not giving a declaration about the death of B. S. Kohli, it is for the appropriate court having jurisdiction to give such declaration. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case continuance of proceedings will be abuse of the process of the court. ( 10 ) IN view of the discussion made above. I set aside the impugned order. The proceedings against B. S. Kohli abates.