ORDER : 1. These petitions arise out of FIR in Crime No. RC.10(A)/2000 registered by the CBI/ACB, Bangalore, on 12.5.2000. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the public servants, namely, Station Director (accused No.1) and another official of the Doordarshan Kendra (accused No.2) had entered into a conspiracy and abused their official position in accepting lesser amount for additional ‘spot buys’ for 10 seconds for telecasting the advertisement. 3. After investigation, CBI/ACB, Bangalore, filed charge-sheet alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Section 420 IPC; and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. One Shri. Mahesh Joshi, the then Director of Doordarshan who is arrayed as accused No.4 in the FIR challenged the proceeding against him in Criminal Petition No.937/2001. This Court by decision dated 24.8.2001, directed that ‘further investigation against the petitioner be stopped.’ The Special Leave Petition filed against the said order in SLP No.328/2002 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 1.2.2002. 5. Further by order dated 15.2.2012 accused Nos.7 to 10 have been discharged by the trial Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge has framed charge against remaining accused. 6. Writ petition Nos.18320/2015 & 18547- 550/2015 are filed by accused No.6, Producer of the serial ‘Top-5’ and ‘Top-10’. Criminal Revision Petition No.749/2012 is filed by accused No.3- the Executive Producer of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. Criminal Revision Petition No.750/2012 is filed by accused No.1- the Station Director of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. Criminal Revision Petition No.751/2012 filed by accused No.2, has abated pursuant to petitioner’s death. Criminal Revision Petition No.552/2012 is filed by accused No.5 who is the producer of the serial. 7. Heard Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate, leading the respective Advocates in all petitions and Shri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocate for the CBI/ACB. 8. The case of the CBI in substance is, Doordarshan offered ‘10 seconds spot- buy’ slot to telecast ‘Top-5’ and ‘Top-10’ advertisement serials at a lesser rate for extraneous considerations. It is alleged that accused Nos. 5 and 6 offered Rs.17,000/- per 10 seconds of ‘spot buy’ slot to telecast the advertisement as against the notified price of Rs.20,000/- per 10 seconds. The officials along with the producers of the serial have entered into a conspiracy and caused loss to the Government owned Doordarshan. 9. It is alleged that accused Nos. 5 and 6 offered Rs.17,000/- per 10 seconds of ‘spot buy’ slot to telecast the advertisement as against the notified price of Rs.20,000/- per 10 seconds. The officials along with the producers of the serial have entered into a conspiracy and caused loss to the Government owned Doordarshan. 9. Shri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate contended that the offer was made on 4.8.1998 by the accused Nos.5 and 6 to the director of Doordarshan at Rs.17,000/-. The Director forwarded the proposal to the Director General Doordarshan, Delhi, for approval who is the final authority to approve the offer. On 8.9.1998, the Director General accorded his approval to the offer made by accused Nos.5 and 6 for ‘spot buy’ at Rs.17,000/-. Thereafter, telecasting commenced on 12.10.1998. 10. Shri. Haranahalli urged that as far as Accused 5 and 6 are concerned, they made their offer at Rs.17,000/- in good faith and same was accepted by the Doordarshan. He stressed that the CBI has not initiated any action against the Director General, Doordarshan, Delhi, who is, in fact, the authority to accept the offer. 11. Per contra, Shri. P. Prasanna Kumar, learned Advocate for the CBI argued in support of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions of Shri. Ashok Haranahalli and other Advocates appearing in respective petitions and Shri. P. Prasanna Kumar, for CBI. 13. To a specific query by this Court made to Shri.P. Prasanna Kumar on the last date of hearing as to whether who is the final authority to accord approval and whether any action has been initiated against the said authority, Shri. P. Prasanna Kumar submitted today that it is the Director General of Doordarshan, Delhi, who is the final authority to accord sanction insofar as the offer of ‘spot buy’ is concerned. In his usual fairness, he submitted that CBI has not initiated action against the said authority. 14. Admittedly, Doordarshan’s highest authority namely, the Director General of Doordarshan, Delhi, has accepted the offer made by the producers at Rs.17,000/- and CBI in its wisdom has not initiated any action against the said authority. 15. It was urged by Shri. Ashok Haranahalli that by an order dated 9.11.1998, the Director General of Doordarshan himself has modified the rate from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for 10 seconds. Approval is accorded in this case on 8.9.1998. 15. It was urged by Shri. Ashok Haranahalli that by an order dated 9.11.1998, the Director General of Doordarshan himself has modified the rate from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/- for 10 seconds. Approval is accorded in this case on 8.9.1998. It is significant to note that within two months there from, Doordarshan has reduced the rate to Rs.15,000/- which is even less than the offer made by the accused No.5 and 6. Conspicuously, the authority which accorded the approval for Rs.17,000/- has not been prosecuted. Therefore, the plea of the CBI that prosecution should be continued only against those who made offer is incongruous. 16. Further this Court in Criminal Petition No.937/2001 has directed that further investigation against the then Director of Doordarshan be stopped. The Special Leave Petition against the said order having been dismissed, the said order has attained finality. The accused Nos. 7 to 10 have been discharged by the Trial Court. 17. It is significant to note that the alleged offence are based on the premise that accused have caused loss to the State owned Doordarshan. The notified rate was Rs.20,000/- per second. Doordarshan accepted the offer of Rs.17,000/- made by accused Nos.5 and 6. But, Doordarshan itself reduced the rate to Rs.15,000/- within two months there from in September 1998. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the rate offered by the Producer was at par with then existing rates. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that continuation of proceedings insofar as petitioners are concerned falls within the definition of abuse of process of law. Therefore, these petitions merit consideration. Hence the following. ORDER (i) Writ Petition Nos.18320/2015 and 18547-18550/2015 are allowed; (ii) Criminal Revision Petition No. 749/2012, Criminal Revision Petition No.750/2012, and Criminal Revision Petition No. 552/2012 are allowed. (iii) FIR in Crime No.RC.10(A)/2000 dated 12.5.2000 filed against these petitioners and all further proceedings are quashed. (iv) Criminal Revision Petition No.751/2012 is dismissed as having abated. Ordered accordingly. No costs.