JUDGMENT 1. - During the years 1974 75-Ram Jeevan petitioner was working as Surpanch. Gram Punchayat Pala Distt. Alwar. In that capacity the petitioner is alleged to have allotted a residential plot to one Harchand Meena R/o Ratangarh (Pala) vide Receipt No. 19 dated 30.11.74 against a consideration of Rs. 500/-. It is alleged that on 23.5.75 the Secy. Distt. Vigilance Committee. Alwar had inspected the accounts of the said Panchayat and noted that the amount of Rs. 500/- had not been deposited by the petitioner with the Government Treasury and that the duplicate of receipt No. 19 was also missing from the Bill Book. Any action taken on the basis of the report of the Secretary, if any and if submitted, is not borne out of the record. 2. Anyway, on 9.8.77 Harchand Meena appears to have made a complaint against the petitioner to the Distt. Vigilance Officer, Alwar who, directed the Secretary to inquire and report. The Secy. after conducting necessary enquiries into the matter reported that the petitioner had misappropriated the aforesaid amount of Rs. 500/- and had further manipulated other receipts and records having a bearing on the genuineness of Receipt No.19 dated 30.11.74. On the receipt of the report of the Secy. dated 22/ 23.9.77 the Distt. Vigilance Committee recommended departmental action against the petitioner and further directed the Block Development Officer Umren to realise the misappropriated amount from the petitioner. 3. It appears that a copy of the report of the Secy. dated 22/23.9.77 had directly been sent to the SHO P.S. Malakhera who returned the same for want of receipt of the documents mentioned in the report. The report was again sent to the SHO with the request to register a case against the petitioner and to obtain the required documents during the course of investigation. Crime No. 8 of 1997 was accordingly registered on 3.10.77 for offence a/Section 409, I.P.C. against the petitioner and investigation was commenced. 4. In the course of investigation the police seized a number of documents including the original receipt No. 19 dated 30.11.77. Receipt No. 19 aforesaid appears to have been obtained from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. This receipt, as is mentioned in the seizure memo dated 4.7.78, had been issued for Rs. 500/- in the name of one Sri Narain S/o Sri Sheoji Narain Brahmin, Pala. Receipt No. 19 aforesaid appears to have been obtained from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alwar. This receipt, as is mentioned in the seizure memo dated 4.7.78, had been issued for Rs. 500/- in the name of one Sri Narain S/o Sri Sheoji Narain Brahmin, Pala. The Investigating Officer appears to have obtained the opinion of the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur regarding the hand writing of the petitioner on this receipt. The Director could give no definite opinion about the authorship of the receipt by the petitioner. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a Final Report u/ Section 169, Cr.P.C. in the case on 31.7.79. 5. The Final Report came to the put up before the learned Magistrate for orders on 1.2.80. By that time Harchand Meena, the receipt holder, had filed his protest petition against the Final Report. Alongwith his protest petition he had filed the report of Sri Krishna Charan, a handwriting expert, who had, on comparing the signature of the petitioner on the Receipt No. 19 with those on a certificate issued to one Heera Lal Sharma, and on the Ration Card No. 23176 issued in the name of Kanhya Lal Sharma had opined in his report dated 21.6.78 that the disputed document (Receipt) had the signatures of the petitioner. After taking into account such report and other documents furnished alongwith the police report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/Sections 409, 465, 468 and 477-A, I.P.C. and summoned the petitioner as accused thereof. After putting in appearance by him in the Court, the petitioner was charged with the above-mentioned offences. He pleaded not guilty and challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 2.7.80, framing charges, before this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 138 of 1980. This Court, vide order dated 25.8.80, transferred petitioner's application u /Section 397, Cr.P.C. to the Sessions Judge, concerned who, vide his order dated 2.9.82 in Cr. Revision Petition No. 25 of 1980, dismissed the same. 6. In the course of the proceedings of the trial against him the petitioner filed an application challenging the very foundation of his prosecution for want of requisite sanction u/ Section 197, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate though appreciated that the petitioner was a public servant and was stated to have misappropriated the Government money in that capacity yet he dismissed the application on the ground of delay. The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate before this Court in S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 309/84, Ramjiwan v. State . Accepting the contention of the petitioner vide its order dated 16.12.87 this Court set aside Magistrates order dated 28.9.84 and quashed the entire proceedings. However, it was left open to the State Government or the Central Government to take further action, if any, in the matter. Special Leave Petition (Cr.) No. 953 / 88, preferred against the aforesaid order of this Court is stated to have been rejected by the Supreme Court on 16.8.88. The State Government accorded its sanction u/ Section 197, Cr.P.C. on 13.7.90 to prosecute the petitioner and again a police report was submitted in Court on 23.4.91. The learned Magistrate commenced the proceedings afresh and framed charge u/Sections 409, 468, 477 and 465, I.P.C. against the petitioner on 13.9.84. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for the third time with the prayer u/ Section 482, Cr.P.C. that the proceedings in the case being taken against him since 1977, be quashed on the ground of their being abuse of the process of the Court. 7. I heard the parties at considerable length and perused the record of proceedings of lower Court as also the written arguments submitted by the petitioners Counsel before me. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case in their entirely I fell that it is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its exceptional powers u/Section 482, Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law/Courts and to secure the ends of justice. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court could not have directed the prosecution to file a fresh complaint after obtaining a sanction u /Section 197, Cr. P.C. from the State Government. There is no such direction of this Court in its order dated 16.12.87 nor that order can be read in that manner. This Court had left it open for the prosecution to proceed or not in the matter further, if they so liked. That does not tantamount to giving order to the prosecution by this Court to obtain sanction and then file a fresh complaint against the petitioner. There is no force in this submission and I reject the same. This Court had left it open for the prosecution to proceed or not in the matter further, if they so liked. That does not tantamount to giving order to the prosecution by this Court to obtain sanction and then file a fresh complaint against the petitioner. There is no force in this submission and I reject the same. I, however, hasten to add that this does not decide the question as to whether the Court is competent to give such a direction in a case or not. 9. It was next urged by the learned Counsel that the Magistrate having once taken, cognizance of an offence on the negative report in this case and such cognizance having been quashed could not have again taken cognizance of the same offence upon the same material before him. The argument is misconceived. The sanction accorded by the State Government made all the difference between the two reports. The Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of the subsequent police report in this case. This argument too is therefore dismissed. 10. The next argument of the learned Counsel that the fresh proceedings in the case would amount to abuse of the process of Court against an old man of 73 years with failing health and who has faced the ordeal of this protracted litigation for more than two decades, appeals to my conscience. 11. It hardly needs repetition that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences in this case, mainly on the basis of the report of Sri Krishna Charan, a handwriting expert ignoring the fact that the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory had expressed his inability to give any definite opinion in that behalf. Whereas the certificate issued by the Director had evidential value and could have been used in evidence, without formal proof, u /Section 293, Cr.P.C. the report of Sri Krishna Chandra was having no such value. The circumstances attending on the report of Sri Krishna Chandra were that the signature on a receipt in possession of Harchand Meena were compared with the signatures on some certificate and ration card. How those documents came to be possessed by Harchand Meena and why those were not delivered to the police during investigation of the case were not explained. The circumstances attending on the report of Sri Krishna Chandra were that the signature on a receipt in possession of Harchand Meena were compared with the signatures on some certificate and ration card. How those documents came to be possessed by Harchand Meena and why those were not delivered to the police during investigation of the case were not explained. Then which was the receipt seized by the police from the record of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar for comparison of the signatures thereon with the specimen signatures of the petitioner ? What was the basis of assumption that the signatures on the receipt, the certificate and the ration card were made by the petitioner? With such glaring infirmities the trial of the petitioner had proceeded for about 10 years and all the prosecution. Witnesses as also the petitioner himself were examined. It was after arriving at such a stage of the trial of the petitioner that the entire proceedings were quashed by this Court on 16.12.87. Even after the order of this Court the prosecution took about two years to grant sanction u/Section 197 and again more time by the prosecutor for filing the fresh challan. In the trial held earlier the prosecution had examined eleven witnesses and the same number of witnesses is likely to be examined in the de novo trial. A majority of the witnesses may not even be traceable now. Again, in the presence of the basic infirmity in the all important and material expert evidence in this case there is remote possibility of conviction of the petitioner, who is already 73 years old and had faced the ordeal of this protracted litigation for more than 20 years for no contribution in delay by him. The continuance of the proceedings of his trial in this case under these circumstances, in my opinion, amounts to abuse of the process of Court which is required to be prevented in the interest of justice.In view of the above discussion the entire proceedings of the trial of the petitioner in this case, as restarted on the submission of sanction u/Section 197, Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed and dropped.Petition allowed. *******