Judgment : The petitioner has filed the revision aggrieved against the order of the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in M.P.No.1556 of 1997, dated 210. 1997. 2. The petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C.No.8531 of 1995 on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court. He filed a petition under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to discharge him in Crl.M.P.No.1556 of 1997. The petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Fisheries and he retired from service as early as 1985. 3. According to the prosecution, the alleged offence took place during 1983-84 and the alleged irregularity was detected in 1991. A complaint was filed in 1995. The petitioner was not implicated as an offender in the enquiry report under Sec.65 of the Cooperative Societies Act. His name was also not included as one of the accused in the first information report. In view of the specific provision under Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, no judicial proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than two years before such institution. No witnesses examined under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has spoken about the complicity of the crime committed by the petitioner. 4. The court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and aggrieved against this, the petitioner has come forward with the present revision. 5. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the court below is proper and correct. 6.Point: It is admitted that the petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Fisheries and he retired from service in the year 1985. The respondent filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for alleged offence under Secs.120-B, 408, 467, 471 and 477, I.P.C. and it was taken on file in C.C.No.853 of 1995. 7. A perusal of the charge-sheet indicated that the petitioner was shown as the 4th accused in the case and according to the charge-sheet, in his capacity as the Assistant Director of Fisheries without proper verification issued the release order in R.C. 2347/ 83/C, dated 17. 1983. 7. A perusal of the charge-sheet indicated that the petitioner was shown as the 4th accused in the case and according to the charge-sheet, in his capacity as the Assistant Director of Fisheries without proper verification issued the release order in R.C. 2347/ 83/C, dated 17. 1983. The cheque was encashed by the President of the Society, namely, the 3rd accused, the encashment was effected only on the basis of the report given by the Senior Inspector, who is the 5th accused in the case. Based on their report only, the release order was issued by the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged offence took place during 1983-84 and it was detected only in 1991. However, the complaint was laid only in 1995, It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service in 1985. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules which reads as follows: “No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.‘” 9. When once it is admitted that the petitioner retired in the year 1985, no judicial proceedings can be taken after four years. Admittedly, the present complaint was laid only in the year !995 and, as such, prima facie, it is clear that no charge can be laid against the petitioner. Further more, he is only a passing authority and based on the reports given by the subordinate officials, he had passed the release orders in question. In view of Rule 9(3) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, it is very clear that no judicial proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner herein after a period of ten years from the date of his retirement. This is a strong ground to allow the application filed by the petitioner. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that some of the witnesses examined under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that the petitioner had issued the release order. This is a strong ground to allow the application filed by the petitioner. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that some of the witnesses examined under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated that the petitioner had issued the release order. Even assuming that the release order was issued by the petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Director, the Department has not taken to initiate criminal proceedings within a period allowed under the rules. Further more, the name of the petitioner was also not shown as one of the accused in the first information report. Apart from that, the name of the petitioner is not implicated in the report given under Sec.65 of the Co-operative Societies Act. These are further circumstances to show that there is absolutely no material to proceed against the concerned petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, J. T. (1988)1 S.C. 279, wherein it is observed as follows: “The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and wherein the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though 3it may be at a preliminary stage”. This decision is applicable to the facts on hand. 12. This decision is applicable to the facts on hand. 12. Taking into consideration of the provision under Rule 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules coupled with the fact that no witnesses examined under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has spoken about the complicity of the crime committed by the petitioner excepting that he has passed the release order based on the report of the subordinate officials coupled with the fact that the petitioner was not implicated in the enquiry report under Sec.65 of Act 30 of 1983, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue so far as the petitioner is concerned and under the circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner has to be allowed. 13. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order passed by the court below is set aside and the Criminal M.P.No.1556 of 1997 is allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the case in C.C.No.8531 of 1995 on the file XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.6469 of 1997 is dismissed.