Judgment : 1. These three revision petitions have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Special Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, on 26.03.2013, in C.C.No.19 of 2008, on an application for discharge filed by the three accused therein, under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 1994, the Government introduced a Scheme for the benefit of Adi Dravidars Community. The Scheme was called 'Cross Breed Heifer Calf Rearing Scheme', under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Chennai. The Scheme was pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.181, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 15.12.1994. Under the Scheme, a Committee was constituted in Sivagangai District headed by the first accused (Dr.B.T.Manickavel), the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry. Dr.B.T.Manickavel (A-1) is the head of the District Livestock Farm, Chettinadu in Sivagangai District. Under the Scheme, the Committee should purchase four months old heifer calves and rear them in the District Farm of Chettinadu upto the age of 24 months or 6 months of pregnancy, whichever is earlier to be distributed to the Adi Dravidar beneficiaries at 50% subsidy. In other words, the beneficiaries should belong to Adi Dravidar Community and on identification of the beneficiaries, one heifer calf will be given to him at 50% subsidy. To further explain, if the cost of the heifer calf is Rs.2,000/-, the beneficiaries should take the calf from the Farm and get a loan from the bank for the balance of Rs.1,000/-and pay to the Government. 50% of the cost will be treated as subsidy. The accused herein were to implement the said Scheme and in the course of the implementation of the Scheme, totally, 250 calves were made available with the District Livestock Farm in Chettinadu under the Head of the first accused, viz., Dr.B.T.Manickavel (A1). 3. It appears that out of 250 calves acquired by the District Farm, 148 calves died in the Farm for various reasons. They did not die at a single moment, but the 207 Cr.P.C., papers relied upon by the prosecution show the following statistics: Year No. of calves 1995 6 1996 71 1997 29 1998 27 1999 13 2000 2 Total 148 Out of the remaining 102 calves, the authorities were able to distribute only 53 calves to various beneficiaries and the balance calves remained in the Farm. A letter was written to the Government on 07.09.1998, requesting the Government for permission to freely distribute the calves to poor Adi Dravidar people or sell the calves in open auction. The Government, by letter dated 11.02.2000, directed that the 49 calves should be sold in open auction. These statistics are available in the documents that are relied upon by the prosecution. 4. While so, on 29.08.2001, the respondent police registered a suo motu First Information Report alleging whole sale irregularities in the distribution of calves in the District Livestock Farm in Chettinadu. Investigation was taken up and ultimately, several final reports were filed on 30.09.2008 after a lapse of seven years. Out of the final reports filed by the respondent police, the subject matter in these Criminal Revision Cases relate to C.C.No.19 of 2008, in which, three persons, viz., Dr.B.T.Manickavel (A-1), K.Venkatesh (A-2) and S.Kannan (A-3) have been arrayed as accused. The charge against these persons is that they had given one calf to a person, by name Pitchai, an Adi Dravida, who is a non-existent person. 5. The accusation relates to the year 1994. The entire prosecution in this final report relates to the allegation that the said Pitchai is a non-existent person. In order to establish this, the prosecution is relying only upon the 161(3) statement of one T.Samayadurai, the Village Administrative Officer of Iluppakudi Village. He was questioned and his statement was recorded on 20.12.2001. The essence of the allegation is that S.Kannan (A-3), who was the Village Administrative Officer of Iluppakudi Village, during the year 1994, had issued a Community Certificate for Pitchai, based on which, A-1 and A-2 had sanctioned one calf to the said Pitchai. Beyond this, there is no shred of evidence to show that the said Pitchai is a non-existent person. The police have not even collected materials from the Bank as to whether the said Pitchai had obtained loan from the Bank in respect of the 50%, which he had to pay to the Government. It is also not the police case that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had set up one 'X' as Pitchai and has given him the calf. Inter alia, it is also not the prosecution case that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had taken one calf for themselves in the guise of giving it to a non-existent Pitchai. 6. It is also not the police case that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had set up one 'X' as Pitchai and has given him the calf. Inter alia, it is also not the prosecution case that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had taken one calf for themselves in the guise of giving it to a non-existent Pitchai. 6. It may be pertinent to note that 53 calves were distributed and it was reported to the Government by the accused that they were not able to distribute the 49 calves. If there had been a conspiracy among these accused, they would not have returned the 49 calves to the Government, but instead, would have made hay while the sun was shining. Of course, that could not lead to the inference that they are innocent, but nevertheless, the enquiry by Samayadurai in 2001 in respect of an Adi Dravidar, who is supposed to have been there in 1994, is too frail a piece of evidence, to fasten criminal liability on these petitioners. 7. It appears that during the course of the discharge application before the learned Special Judge -cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused produced the said Pitchai before the Magistrate and stated that he was very much available in flesh and blood and Pitchai also filed an affidavit to the effect that he had obtained a calf in the said Scheme. This shows that the police had not properly investigated the case. For discharging a person under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accusation should be groundless. 8. I find that from the totality of the facts of the case, when the accused have distributed totally 53 calves and retained 49 calves, which is admitted by the prosecution, the allegation that one beneficiary is a bogus beneficiary and, therefore, they had entered into a criminal conspiracy, would be too much to swallow. The final report does not even say what is the loss that the Government has sustained on account of this transaction of giving one calf to the said Pitchai. The charge sheet does not even quantify the loss to the Government. Therefore, I am convinced that the materials on record are too weak for framing a charge against the petitioners herein, that too, for an alleged occurrence of the year 1994. The charge sheet does not even quantify the loss to the Government. Therefore, I am convinced that the materials on record are too weak for framing a charge against the petitioners herein, that too, for an alleged occurrence of the year 1994. The charge sheet has been filed only in the year 2008 and whatever evidence the accused could have marshalled in their defence, would have been effaced, due to efflux of time. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The petitioners/A-1,A-2 and A-3 are discharged. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.