JUDGMENT 1. - By these six petitions, it has been prayed that there is no progress in the trial court not even a single witness has been examined so far, therefore, these proceedings be quashed. Since common Issue is involved in all these six petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner, in all these petitions, was employee of Poddar Spinning Mills since 1972. From the period January, 1976 to Nov., 1976, he has changed the figures of various bills and thereby dishonestly put the complainant in loss of Rs. 547.85. The details of various bills and interpolation by him in the bills of various firms are given as under:- fcy uacj rkjh[k QeZ dk uke okLrfod jde cukbZ xbZ jde dEiuh ls T;knk mBkbZ xbZ jde 1888 13-1-76 t;iqj isUV gkml] t;iqj 2-80 12-50 7-70 699 21-2-76 ehjpUnzk cznlZ] t;iqj 7-75 17-75 10-00 285 24-2-76 jLrkSxh cznlZ] t;iqj 1-00 10-00 9-00 1166 8-3-76 vksVks lsUVj] t;iqj 5-50 16-50 11-00 3382 8-3-76 t;iqj isUV gkml] t;iqj 9-00 9-50 0-50 388 21-4-76 ukjk;.k LVkslZ] t;iqj 14-40 14-40 14-40 3444 30-4-76 dSyk'kifr tujy LVksj] t;iqj 5-75 15-75 10-00 6148 30-4-76 jLrkSxh cznlZ] t;iqj 2-60 22-00 19-40 4576 8-6-76 jke cjru Hk.Mkj] t;iqj 5-00 5-35 0-35 1751 10-6-76 ehjUnkuh cznlZ] t;iqj 5-15 8-15 3-00 84 5-7-76 >.Mwjke psykjke] t;iqj 6-00 6-00 6-00 3566 29-8-76 t;iqj lsusVjh LVksj] t;iqj 0-50 6-50 6-00 2687 29-9-76 ukjk;.k LVkslZ] t;iqj 7-90 17-90 10-00 5435 13-10-76 dey iysVlZ] t;iqj 8-00 38-00 30-00 2440 14-10-76 dey iysVlZ] t;iqj 15-00 45-00 30-00 1961 15-10-76 ljLorh VSDllZ] t;iqj 01-57 13-57 11-90 825 9-11-76 Vh0,l0 ikj[k ,.M dEiuh 48-00 98-00 50-00 23487 12-11-76 t;la[kyky ,.M lal] cEcbZ 128-20 420-00 300-00 23090 25-7-76 f'ko ikoZrh tujy LVkslZ] t;iqj 16-70 16-70 16-70 3. Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of their Lordships in case of Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [1994 SCC (Cr.) 1663] , wherein, in para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed as under:- "It is true that the charges against the appellant relate to misappropriation of public funds. Mr. Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the judgment of their Lordships in case of Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, [1994 SCC (Cr.) 1663] , wherein, in para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships have observed as under:- "It is true that the charges against the appellant relate to misappropriation of public funds. In such a case, we should take a more stricter view as Indicated In the Constitution Bench decision in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 ] , But there are certain circumstances in this case which induce us to interfere in the matter. The most glaring one is that even though the FIR was issued on 10.12.1977, the charge-sheet was filed only on 5.2.1983, i.e., after a lapse of 5 years. No explanation is forthcoming for this extraordinary delay. Maybe, this being a case of misappropriation of public funds, the investigation may have taken a longer time but it cannot certainly take more than five years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Added to the said circumstance is the fact that even though there was no stay in this special leave petition Criminal appeal, the case has not progressed much as stated above. Moreover, the appellant has been dismissed from sene on these very allegations. His provident fund and gratuity amounts have been forfeited and he has crossed the age of superannuation. Calling upon him now to enter upon defence, after 16 years, in all the facts and circumstances of the case, is bound to cause prejudice to him." 4. After Investigation, the charge sheet was filed in 1983. The case was registered as Case No. 84/83. After charge sheet, court found that the interpolation In the bills at different times in all the cases forms different offences, and more than three cases cannot be tried in one trial, therefore, court ordered that file the separate charge-sheet accordingly. This direction was given in 1984. No compliance was made till 1994 for 10 years. Then, separate charge-sheets were filed numbering 69/B, 69/C, 69/A, 69/E, 69/D. In the year 1995, and therefore, in consequence of those charge-sheets, the case was registered as 310/95, 311/95, 314/95, 313/95 & 312/95 and not even a single witness has been examined so far. Even, the complainant is not serious in conviction of accused petitioner. Then, separate charge-sheets were filed numbering 69/B, 69/C, 69/A, 69/E, 69/D. In the year 1995, and therefore, in consequence of those charge-sheets, the case was registered as 310/95, 311/95, 314/95, 313/95 & 312/95 and not even a single witness has been examined so far. Even, the complainant is not serious in conviction of accused petitioner. For no fault of the petitioner, he has been dragged by mistake of prosecution in non-compliance of direction of the court order in 1984, for 11 years. The petitioner has already suffered mental agony for this petty amount. That is also some sort of punishment, therefore, in the interest of justice, such proceedings should be dropped. Considering the facts referred above, I find no justification in continuance of such proceedings. Consequently, all the six petitions are allowed and proceedings in Cr. Case Nos. 84/93, 310/95, 311/95, 314/95, 313/95 & 312/95 are quashed.Petition allowed-Proceeding quashed. *******