JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Applicant No. 1 Sunil Sonkusare and Applicant No. 2 Masood Ahmed in Criminal Application (APL) No. 273/2011 and the applicant Vithalrao Bhandakkar in Criminal Application (APL) No. 263/2011 are the accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively in Regular Criminal Case No. 983/2009 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola. They are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the alleged prime accused Prakash Dhurandar who is cited as accused No. 1. 4. The applicants before moving this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code had applied for discharge before the trial Court. The said application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 273 of 2011 had filed a revision application before the Sessions Court. Said revision application has also been dismissed. Applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 263 of 2011 had filed separate revision application, which has also been dismissed. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Before I advert to the grievances of the applicants, it is necessary to note down certain admitted facts. It is admitted position that applicant No.1 Sunil Sonkusare (hereinafter referred as "applicant No.1") and applicant No. 2 Masood Ahmed in Criminal Application (APL) No. 273/2011 (hereinafter referred as "applicant No. 2") were working as Taluka Agricultural Officers. Applicant No. 1 was holding the said post during the period between 13th February, 2007 to 10th April, 2007 and applicant No. 2 was his successor in office and was holding the said post from 11th April, 2007 to 28th September, 2007. It is also admitted position that the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 263/2011 (hereinafter referred as "applicant No. 3") was working as Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Akot. It is further admitted position that applicant No. 3 was superior in rank to applicant Nos. l and 2. What is further admitted is that accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar was holding charge of the said post during the period between 10th August, 2006 to 12th February, 2007. 6. It is further admitted position that applicant No. 3 was superior in rank to applicant Nos. l and 2. What is further admitted is that accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar was holding charge of the said post during the period between 10th August, 2006 to 12th February, 2007. 6. The allegations against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are that the pesticides stored in the go-down of the department had expired without being distributed to the agriculturist/farmers for whose benefit the same were bought. The purchases of pesticides and other articles, which were not utilized, were admittedly made by accused No.1 Prakash Dhurandar during his tenure. In addition to this, it is alleged that earthworm sheds were ordered to be constructed by firms namely, Dhanshree and Vanshree belonging to one Mr. Satish Ugle. It is alleged that advance of Rs. 49,00,000/- was given to these two firms and the firms, in fact, did not construct the earthworm sheds as per the orders. It is how the applicants have allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel Mr. F.T. Mirza has submitted that even if the case of prosecution on the basis of charge-sheet and other documents is taken to be true in toto, no case for the offences alleged against the applicants can be made out even for framing charge. I have gone through the First Information Report, charge-sheet, statement of Mr. Satish Ugle, who is star witness of the prosecution and the report of Enquiry Officer. After perusal of these documents and other miscellaneous documents, what can be seen is that the allegations are primarily against accused No.1 Prakash Dhurandar. This fact could be seen from the report of the Enquiry Officer also. What is alleged against applicant Nos. l and 2 is that after taking charge from accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar, they did not bother to distribute the pesticides lying in the go-down. What is seen from the record is that by the time the inspection was carried out during the regime of applicant No. 3, it was found that major portion of pesticides had already expired. A very marginal amount of pesticides was in the go-down, which probably had not expired. 8. The allegations against applicant Nos. What is seen from the record is that by the time the inspection was carried out during the regime of applicant No. 3, it was found that major portion of pesticides had already expired. A very marginal amount of pesticides was in the go-down, which probably had not expired. 8. The allegations against applicant Nos. l and 2 are that they did not take care of the stock and they did not bother to distribute the stock amongst the farmers. It is not the case of prosecution that applicant Nos. l, 2 & 3 had conspired with accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar to commit fraud. As far as criminal breach of trust is concerned, it is possible that there may be some understanding between the contractor and the Taluka Agricultural Officer. However, it is noted that neither applicant No. 1 nor applicant No. 2 had any dealing with the contractor Mr. Ugle. The deal was finalized during the tenure of accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar. 9. Perusal of statement of Mr. Ugle clearly reveals that some of the sheds had been constructed by him. He could not construct the sheds as per the order because of shortage of raw materials and water. It is not denied by him that he could not complete the work. It is stated by him that he was ready to complete the remaining work. He has further stated in his statement before the police that he himself had suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 26,00,000/- due to non-compliance on the part of the department. He was intending to file a civil suit against the Government for the loss. The statement of Mr. Ugle does not in any manner implicate applicant Nos. l and 2. Even the departmental charge-sheet does not state that applicant Nos. l and 2 had committed any breach of trust much-less the criminal breach of trust. It is clearly stated in the departmental charge-sheet itself that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were negligent inasmuch as they did not take care of the remaining stock, which had expired. 10. After having carefully examined the statements of witnesses, charge-sheet and enquiry report, what at the most can be said is that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were negligent to some extent. Learned Counsel Mr. F.T. Mirza for applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were negligent inasmuch as they did not take care of the remaining stock, which had expired. 10. After having carefully examined the statements of witnesses, charge-sheet and enquiry report, what at the most can be said is that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were negligent to some extent. Learned Counsel Mr. F.T. Mirza for applicant Nos. l and 2 has stated that, in fact, accused No. 1, Prakash Dhurandar after committing of alleged offences, had absconded and was not accessible either to police or officers of the department. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had to take charge without any charge report and they were not aware of the stock and other materials. They were not aware of the fact that earthworm sheds were to be constructed by the contractor. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to controvert the submissions. There is no material on record to show that either applicant No. 1 or applicant No. 2 was party to the acts of accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar. There is also no evidence that they had passively supported accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar. In fact, bare perusal of the charge-sheet and statements of witnesses show that there was no case at all of any nature to prosecute applicant Nos. l and 2. In fact, in my considered opinion, it would have been advisable to file summary report against applicant Nos. 1 and 2. As such continuation of proceedings against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 obviously is abuse of process of law and need to be stayed. 12. As regards applicant No. 3, it is alleged that he being superior officer, did not bother to supervise the work done by accused No. 1 Prakash Dhurandar. No mens rea is attributed to applicant No. 3 also. He is also, according to departmental charge-sheet, guilty of negligence. It is not the case of prosecution that he shared the booty. As such all the applicants, can at the most, be said to be guilty of negligence. It is necessary to be noted that applicant No. 3 has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry. Departmental enquiry is pending against applicant No. 2. No departmental enquiry was initiated against applicant No. 1. For all these reasons, the proceedings against applicant No. 3 also need to be quashed. 13. I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below. Departmental enquiry is pending against applicant No. 2. No departmental enquiry was initiated against applicant No. 1. For all these reasons, the proceedings against applicant No. 3 also need to be quashed. 13. I have gone through the orders of both the Courts below. It appears that neither the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola nor the Additional Sessions Judge Akola has considered the facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the applicants. Both the Courts below probably were not inclined to grant the prayer only because of the amount involved in the alleged fraud. It can be seen from their orders that they were swayed away by the magnitude of the alleged fraud. The orders of both the Courts below, therefore, cannot be sustained and they needs to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order. The order dated 29-7-2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola in Reg. Criminal Case No. 983/2009 is set aside. The judgment and order dated 31-3-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 141/2010 and Criminal Revision No. 144/2010 are also set aside. The proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola vide Regular Criminal Case No. 983/2009 against the applicants shall stand quashed. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Both the applications are disposed of accordingly. Applications allowed.