Judgment :- 1. Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. The submissions made by Mr.R.Prabudoss, learned counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Government Advocate, Puducherry were heard. The grounds of criminal revision case, copy of the lower Court order and other documents produced in the form of a typed-set of papers filed by the petitioner were also perused. 3. The petitioner herein figures as Accused No.3 in C.C.No.170 of 2005, which is pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. A case was registered in Crime No.2 of 2003 on the file of CID Police, Puducherry. The Inspector of Police, CID, Puducherry after completing investigation, submitted a final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 468 and 471 IPC r/w. 34 IPC, by the petitioner herein and three other persons. 4. According to the prosecution case, one Murugavel (A1), S/o.R.K.Selvarajan, Mudhaliarpet, Puducherry, forged 5 documents registered on 25.11.1999 by impersonating his father R.K.Selvarajan and got it registered in the office with the connivance of the petitioner herein, who was functioning as Joint Sub-Registrar and two other accused persons, namely A1 and A2 and that while doing so, the petitioner herein deliberately failed to obtain the thumb impression of the executant of those documents. Similar allegations are made against one A.M.Mani, Assistant Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Puducherry in respect of 7 other documents registered on 21.01.2000. Despite the fact that such clear allegations have been made, besides pointing out the fact that the petitioner as registering authority in order to help A1 to impersonate his father, failed to take his thumb impression in the documents and in the Register maintained in the Registration Department, the petitioner chose to file a petition before the trial Court for discharge, that too after four years from the date on which the case was taken on file. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the submissions made on either side, dismissed the petition by the impugned order dated 20.09.2010. The propriety of the said order is questioned by the petitioner in the present criminal revision case. 5. The petitioner, having chosen to challenge the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing his petition for discharge, has selectively produced copies of the statements of two of the persons cited as witnesses. The propriety of the said order is questioned by the petitioner in the present criminal revision case. 5. The petitioner, having chosen to challenge the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing his petition for discharge, has selectively produced copies of the statements of two of the persons cited as witnesses. Of course, in the said statements, they do not directly implicate the petitioner herein. But, they have stated in clear terms that A1 impersonated his father R.K.Selvarajan and got those documents registered. Both the attestors, whose statements are relied on by the petitioners, are having close connections with the Registration Department. The statements of other witnesses have not been produced. However, a stand was taken by the petitioner before the Court below that the evidence of other witnesses could not be relied on, as they happened to be interested witnesses. It had also been pleaded that there was delay in lodging the complaint. The third ground alleged was that one Ashram who had also been implicated by some of the witnesses had not been made an accused. On these three grounds alone, the petitioner had sought for an order of discharge. 6. The Court below has negatived the contention of the petitioner on all the three grounds. First of all, the evidence of witnesses cited on the side of the prosecution being interested, cannot be rejected at the out set and no finding with regard to the veracity of such witnesses can be rendered at this point of time. So far as the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, mere delay shall not be fatal to prosecution case. Only unexplained delay, which is capable of showing that the prosecution case could have been concocted will affect the prosecution case. Therefore, such a delay alone cannot be taken as the ground for discharge and it is a matter for a decision to be taken after trial. Moreover, in this case the prosecution story is that documents have been forged by impersonation with the connivance of the Registering authority and the Registering Authority has also deliberately omitted to take the thumb impressions of the executant in the documents and also in the Register. Therefore, even in the absence of any direct statement by the witnesses, this evidence in the form of document, shall be of immense use for the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, even in the absence of any direct statement by the witnesses, this evidence in the form of document, shall be of immense use for the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner. As such, even assuming that no witness has spoken against the petitioner herein, it cant be said that there is no evidence for making the petitioner stand for trial in this case. The reason assigned for the delay can also be conceived in such cases, as it is quite natural for the persons to detect forgery only after sometime. 7. The third contention raised by the petitioner that one more person implicated by the witnesses has not been arraigned as an accused, is not a ground on which the petitioner is entitled to be discharged . Non-joinder of a co-offender is not a ground on which one can seek discharge or even acquittal. Even otherwise, the Court below has rightly held that if the Court on perusal of the records and after recording the evidence in the course of trial, comes across any material for proceeding against any other person, ample powers are available under Section 319 Cr.P.C and that therefore, the third ground on which the petitioner has sought for an order of discharge is also not tenable. 8. This Court does not find any defect or impropriety in the decision made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein, seeking an order discharging him from the above said criminal case. It is also pertinent to note that one more accused, namely A1 filed a petition in 2006 and the same was dismissed. After the dismissal of the said petition, the petitioner chose to file the present discharge petition concerned in this petition. It is shocking to know that such a case is pending for five long years after the case was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as a calendar case. Therefore, while deciding to dismiss this petition, this Court wants to issue a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Therefore, while deciding to dismiss this petition, this Court wants to issue a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.