Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioners seek quashment of proceedings of Special Case No. 7/2000, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Sagar, against these petitioners and one S. C. Jain, for offences punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 2. ) AS per prosecution, for the appointments of Shiksha Karmi, Grade III, against the vacancies available in Janpad Panchayat, Banda, in respect of which the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, so also Selection Rules, 1998, were applicable, petitioner Raj Kumar participated as Chairman of Selection Committee along with Mukundilal (petitioner) and S. C. Jain, as members, wherein, the sons of these three also appeared as candidates, and were selected. ( 3. ) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid proceedings of Special Case No. 7/2000, are already quashed by this Court in M. Cr. C. No. 1389/2001, so far as co-accused/petitioner of M. Cr. C. No. 1389/2001, Rajendra Kumar Sharma is concerned, and hence on the basis of parity, the proceedings of Special Case No. 7/2000, are liable to be quashed, in respect of these two petitioners also. ( 4. ) BUT, on consideration of order dated 7th May, 2001, passed by this Court in M. Cr. C. No. 1389/2001, it is noted that Rajendra Kumar Sharma (petitioner) of course participated in selection, being the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat, Banda, but neither his son was a candidate, nor there was any evidence to prove the fact of this knowledge to Rajendra Kumar Sharma that the sons of these petitioners and S. C. Jain, were appearing as candidates, therefore, these petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefit of parity, as submitted by learned Counsel appearing for them. ( 5. ) THEN, as per photocopy of order dated 29th December, 2000, passed by Special Judge, in Special Case No. 7/2000, the charges were framed against these petitioners and co-accused S. C. Jain on the same day, hence it is at a very late stage for exercise of inherent powers and it is the settled position of law that an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be entertained at the late stage. Secondly, it is found dictated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Satya Narayan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No. 981/2001, that in the cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr. PC, are to be adopted in appropriate cases only and on consideration of facts of this case, the present one does not fall in the category of appropriate cases. Lastly, for a consideration of the point if the alleged act of petitioners fall in the category of misconduct, the appreciation of evidence is necessary, which is not permissible in the petition seeking exercise of inherent powers. ( 6. ) THUS, this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.