JUDGMENT:- This is an application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking discharge in criminal cases (R.C.C. No.94/1995. R.C.C. No.95/1995 and R.C.C. No.96/1995) pending on file ofleamed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. 2. The applicant was attached to Gram Panchayat at village Shevgaon as a Gram Sevak. An Audit Inspection was conducted for period between 1983-84 to 1986-87. The Auditor noticed irregularities committed by the applicant in maintaining the office record. It was observed by the Auditor that during the relevant period, the applicant committed criminal misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.16,435.55 ps., in collusion with other office bearers of the village Panchayat. He was served with a notice dated 13-03-1989 issued by the Block Development Officer. He was called upon to deposit the amount allegedly misappropriated and unaccounted. He deposited the said amount on 15-04-1989. The Village Panchayat resolved, on 9th May, 1989, that the t irregularities found in the accounting may be deemed as regularized and the lapses were condoned. The applicant was suspended from service in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. Thereafter on 05-05-1990, the F.I.R. was lodged against him in respect of the temporary misappropriation. The Police charge-sheeted him after certain investigation. 3. The applicant submitted application for discharge under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code on ground that the amounts of alleged misappropriation have been deposited by him immediately after service of the demand notice issued by the Block Development Officer. He sought benefit of a Government Circular dated 21st June, 1984. By the said Government Circular, instructions have been given to the concerned departments that the employee may not be subjected to criminal prosecution if the amount is reproduced within period of one (1) month, after service of demand notice. 4. By order dated 19-11-1998, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected his applications. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to conclusion that the Government Circular would be applicable in respect of small amounts, but where amount is more, then it would not be attracted. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed present application. 5. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 6. Mrs. Jadhav, would submit that the Village Panchayat resolved to condone the lapses. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed present application. 5. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 6. Mrs. Jadhav, would submit that the Village Panchayat resolved to condone the lapses. The Resolution (Exh-C) purports to show that since the amount is deposited by the applicant, the Village Panchayat resolved to waive the objections appearing in the Audit Report because the financial loss was recouped. Mrs. Jadhav would submit that the Government Resolution gives instructions to deal with such cases and some other employees have been exonerated, but the applicant is prosecuted. It is argued that policy decision of the Government is not to initiate prosecution in such kind of misappropriation if the Government servant would repay the amount within the specified time. The learned advocate further would submit that the appellant ought to have been discharged in view of the fact that his prosecution was uncalled for and moreover, the Village Panchayat did not suffered any loss. Per contra, learned A.P.P. supports the impugned order. 7. Before I proceed to consider merits of the matter, it may be mentioned here that the charge-sheet of Departmental Enquiry was served on the applicant. The first charge was that he committed misappropriation of Rs.16,435.51 ps. and also of Rs.I645.43 Rs. Another charges was to the effect that he was responsible for suspected misappropriation to the tune of Rs.6,60,758.02 ps. It appears, no doubt, that the applicant deposited various amounts. The applicant gave an application dated 15-04-1989 wherein he narrated that an amount of Rs.9010.30 ps. was deposited by him vide receipts No.1001 to 1013. The amount is not prima facie deposited to the full extent. 8. The applicant has retired from the service. He alleges that similarly placed other employees were not prosecuted. He seeks to rely upon information received by him in the exercise of provisions under the Right to Information Act. . A copy of the table is placed on record to show that other employees by name Mr. R.K. BeIge, Mr. J.D. Kothule, Mr. K.R. Shakin, Mr. B.U. Ugalmugle, Mr. C.B. Borude and Mr. G.B. Chemte, have not been prosecuted. The details of the charges against such other Village Officers (Gram-Sevaks) are not, however, on record. It is difficult to compare their cases with that of the applicant. 9. It "Dagadu Shamrao Deshmukh Vs. R.K. BeIge, Mr. J.D. Kothule, Mr. K.R. Shakin, Mr. B.U. Ugalmugle, Mr. C.B. Borude and Mr. G.B. Chemte, have not been prosecuted. The details of the charges against such other Village Officers (Gram-Sevaks) are not, however, on record. It is difficult to compare their cases with that of the applicant. 9. It "Dagadu Shamrao Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra" 1982 Cri.L.J. 1866, a Single Bench of this Court held that the prosecution of Government servant in violation of the policy decision under the relevant Government Circular was improper. This Court held that the action of the Government was totally unjustified. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Sharad Manohar, J.) held that the Circular dated 6th May, 1976 was intended to be of uniform application and the action of the Government to withhold withdrawal of the prosecution was even less justified. This Court was required to deal with the subject again in "Natha Shankar Kutharwade Vs. State of Maharashtra" 1992 Mh.L.J.580. The Single Bench of this Court distinguished the case "Dagadu Shamrao Deshmukh" (supra). The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble A. A. Halbe, J.) held that the Government Circular would be attracted only in case of small amounts. It is observed that in case of misappropriation of small amount or that in case of misappropriation of technical nature, the Government Circular may be relevant. The learned Single Judge, therefore, disallowed the contention that the accused could be discharged for the reason that the amount was deposited within reasonable period. 10. In "Sheshrao Bhagwanji Hirulkar Vs. State ofMaharashtra" 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 808 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1882]. Yet another learned Single Judge of this Court (R. K. Batta, J.) held that even when there are instructions of the Government regarding withdrawal of a prosecution case under the Government Circular dated 6th May, 1876, there is a duty cast on the Public Prosecutor to apply his mind independently and come to his own conclusion. It was held, that the Government Circular would not apply to patwaris in the Revenue Department. The learned Single Judge observed that the relevant Circular applies only to the employees of Village Panchayat and it is not of general application. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant was employee of the Panchayat. 11. It was held, that the Government Circular would not apply to patwaris in the Revenue Department. The learned Single Judge observed that the relevant Circular applies only to the employees of Village Panchayat and it is not of general application. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant was employee of the Panchayat. 11. On close, reading of the instructions contained in the Government Circular which is sought to be relied upon by the applicant, it would be manifest that it contains administrative instructions issued to concerned Department. It is well settled that administrative instructions of such nature do not have any force of law. The instructions are issued for the purpose of internal administration. In no way, it can be gathered that the Government has taken policy decision to abandon all such criminal charges only because the misappropriated amount is recouped. The administrative instructions cannot be enforced by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is to be invoked sparingly with circumspection and caution. The Apex Court has time and again emphasized that the powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be exercised unless it is found that the criminal case would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In case of "Som Mittal Vs. Govt. of Karnataka" (2008)3 SCC 574 : [2008 ALL MR (Cri) 1151 (S.C.)], the Apex Court explained the meaning of expression "rarest of rare case" in which the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked. It is observed: "When the words "the rarest of rare cases are used after the words "sparingly and with circumspection" while describing the scope of Section 482, Cr.P.C. those words merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words "sparingly and with circumspection", they mean that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice. The expression "the rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302, IPC, but to emphasise that the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection." 12. The fact that the applicant deposited certain amounts in one go and that the Village Panchayat resolved to condone the lapses may be considered as a mitigating circumstance while awarding sentence, if the offence is proved. Still, however, when it is difficult to say that the amount was trivial in nature. I am not inclined to countenance the arguments put forth by Mrs. Jadhav, learned advocate appearing for the applicant. In my view, the amount, if considered with justa position of 1989, cannot be regarded as too small. Hence, in view of "Natha Shankar Kutharwade" (supra), the applicant is not entitled to claim discharge as a matter of right. The Government circular mentioned above is not a specific policy decision to withdraw such type of criminal cases in holdall manner. Nor it has been issued in order to translate the discretion available under section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code on ground of any public good. Nor it can be ferreted out that withdrawal of the criminal case or discharge of the applicant is in the interest of the society. The internal circular, containing administrative instructions, cannot be put forth as a shield. The circular referred to by the applicant does not provide for umbrella of protection, nay, it would not be useful as lever to claim discharge from the criminal cases. 13. The power to discharge an accused is available under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The framing of charge is dependent on available material appearing from the record of the case. The Apex Court in "State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi" 2005(1) Crimes 1 (S.C.), held that at the stage of framing charge, the Trial Court is required to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The Apex Court observed: "It is evident that the record of the case and documents submitted therewith as postulated in section 227 relate to the case and the documents referred to in section 209. That is the plain meaning of section 227 read with section 209 of the Code. The Apex Court observed: "It is evident that the record of the case and documents submitted therewith as postulated in section 227 relate to the case and the documents referred to in section 209. That is the plain meaning of section 227 read with section 209 of the Code. No provision in the Code grants the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial" The Apex Court further held that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance, the accused has no right to produce any material. The applicant cannot seek discharge peremptorily on basis of the Government Circular referred to by him. 14. For the reasons afore stated, I am inclined to hold that the applicant is not entitled to claim discharge. His application was rightly rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. It does not amount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. Application dismissed.