ORDER 1. The petitioner, who has been cited as one of the witnesses by the prosecution in C.C. No. 10717 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, has come forward with this petition seeking to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 10.8.2006 by acquitting the accused therein/respondents 3 and 4 herein and also to direct the Commissioner of Police to initiate appropriate action against the 5th respondent herein/Public Prosecutor for dispensing with 83 witnesses without any authority and causing miscarriage of justice. 2. The facts of the case is as follows: One Meenarajmanikm and others including the petitioner herein are complainant in C.C. No. 10717 of 2001 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. The 3rd and 4th respondents are accused 1 and 2 in that matter. The accused 1 and 2/respondents 3 and 4 herein run a Financial Corporation by name “Rekha Finance Corporation” in which they collected deposits from the general public to the tune of Rs. 1,67,29,058/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on maturity. The petitioner is one such aggrieved person, who has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/-. Since no amount has been repaid to her, she has preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent and the same was registered by the 2nd respondent in Crime No. 983 of 2001 and on completing the investigation, the final report filed by the 2nd respondent police was taken cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai as C.C. No. 10717 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 120-B and 420 read with 34 of IPC. The copies of documents have been furnished to the accused and to his shock and surprise, it was noted that during trial, only 4 depositors similarly placed that of the petitioner have been examined by the prosecution side and in respect of that 4 depositors only, amounts have been settled by the accused and no amount has been paid in respect of the other depositors. At this stage, the Assistant Public Prosecutor/5th respondent herein who has represented the Prosecution side has made an endorsement that “the remaining witnesses need not be examined and closed the prosecution”. At this stage, the Assistant Public Prosecutor/5th respondent herein who has represented the Prosecution side has made an endorsement that “the remaining witnesses need not be examined and closed the prosecution”. Based on the same, the trial Court has acquitted the accused under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. against which the present petition was filed by the petitioner who has been cited as W.77 in the List of Witnesses on the side of the prosecution. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except four persons, no depositors have been settled with their amounts. The learned counsel would further submit that at the time of superannuation, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate along with the Assistant Public Prosecutor colluded with the accused and dispensed with the examination of other witnesses and acquitted the accused thereby allowed them to go scot free. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said judgment of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate made in C.C. No. 10717 of 2001 dated 10.8.2006 has to be set aside and action has to be initiated against the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor who has acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the interest of the public. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that he has got no objection for the view which has to be taken by this Court regarding the dispensation of the witnesses by the 5th respondent herein/Assistant Public Prosecutor before the lower Court and the judicial pronouncement of judgment. He would further submit that the prosecution side is expected to follow the relevant procedure contemplated under the law. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would also submit that they are ready to obey the direction issued by this Court in accordance with law. 5. No representation for the respondents 3 to 5 despite notice and the private notice served on the 5th respondent was returned as unclaimed. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on either side and I have also perused the materials available on record carefully. 7. 5. No representation for the respondents 3 to 5 despite notice and the private notice served on the 5th respondent was returned as unclaimed. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on either side and I have also perused the materials available on record carefully. 7. A perusal of the entire records would go to show that how there is purposeful commission and omission had happened in this case, since the judicial system has failed in this case, that too, because of the eve of retirement of the Judicial Officer and with the connivance of the Assistant Public Prosecutor by using the provisions of law how technically they have settled the amount only to four depositors leaving the other 83 depositors in lurch. Even though, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the others have not been settled, on a perusal of the records, it is made clear that except the 4 depositors no one has been settled with the amount. Further, it is pertinent to note that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai by the prosecution. The reason, according to the petitioner is that as he has been cited as Witness No.77, he was waiting to give evidence before the Court. But unfortunately, after examination of 4 witnesses, the trial Court has hurriedly closed the case and pronounced the judgment, that too, after getting the endorsement from the Assistant Public Prosecutor in respect of dispensation of other witnesses as “the remaining witnesses need not be examined”. But, the Assistant Public Prosecutor therein/5th respondent herein has not specifically stated that the amount has been paid to other depositors also. 8. It is also pertinent to note that even though on two occasions, private notice has been ordered by this Court to the respondents 3 to 5 on 10.2.2010 and 8.10.2012, it was returned as unclaimed and no response whatsoever is coming from the then Assistant Public Prosecutor/5th respondent herein. 9. In view of all the above, the Registry is directed to address the Director of Prosecution to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against the 5th respondent and further, the Director of Prosecution is directed to furnish all the details to the 5th respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to secure the accused by getting Non-Bailable Warrant from the Court and to conduct the case from where they left. The 2nd respondent is directed to secure the accused by getting Non-Bailable Warrant from the Court and to conduct the case from where they left. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor at present is directed to inform the status of the case to this Court and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai are also directed to follow up the case and to inform about the commencement of the trial to this Court. This exercise has to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 10. It is a case where the petitioner is crying for justice and has come forward with this petition before this Court. As I have already narrated, the petitioner, on his personal capacity parted away with a sum of nearly Rs. 3,80,000/-. But till today, she could not get the money back, instead, she could able to hear the acquittal of the accused from this case. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where this Court can exercise its exclusive power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11. In view of all the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed in the following lines: i. The judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C. No. 10717 of 2001 dated 10.8.2006 is hereby set aside; ii. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for de novo trial and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to take the case on file and to issue Non-Bailable Warrant to secure the accused and to proceed further in accordance with law; and iii. As narrated earlier, the Director of Prosecution to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 5th respondent and to furnish all the details to the 5th respondent and the present Assistant Public Prosecutor is directed to report the status of the case to this Court; and iv. the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai are also directed to follow up the case and to inform about the commencement of the trial. This exercise has to be commenced within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 12. With the above observation, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.