JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant criminal revision petition, stands, directed against the order directing the framing of charges, under Sections 409, 420, and, under Section 120-B of the IPC, against accused Anil Kumar, Surjeet Kumar, Sushil Kumar, Jyoti Prakash, and, Kanshi Ram, hence by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, who thereafter proceeded, to, direct the afore, to, record their personal appearances, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, on 14.05.2015, as the afore offences were exclusively triable, by, the afore Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved strives to draw parity, from, the impugned order hence proceeding, to, make an order of discharge, vis-a-vis, the, apposite co-accused, namely, vis-a-vis, one Anil Sharma, one Hari Ram Khatana, one Yogi Ram, and, one Roop Singh. All the afore are public servants, and, the afore order of discharge made in their favour, hence, remained unassailed before this Court, and, hence, the afore apposite order, has, attained, the, completest conclusivity, and, finality. The espoused parity, vis-avis, them, is, unaffordable, as, an, ad nauseam discussion, rather exists in the impugned order, and, also the records withstand, the, exculpatory findings becoming recorded, vis-a-vis, them, (a) and, all making vivid display qua theirs holding no prima facie complicity or connivance with the aggrieved petitioners, either in making release(s), to, them, of, the cement bags, purchased only, for, user or for execution, of, government/public works, nor any firm prima facie documentary evidence exists on record, in, display, qua theirs appending their signatures, on, the registers concerned, or on the indents concerned, where through, purportedly the cement bags were illegally released, vis-a-vis, the aggrieved petitioners. 3. Be that as it may, with firm exculpatory evidence existing on record, vis-a-vis, the co-accused concerned, qua whom a conclusive order of discharge was made, and, obviously thereupon, no parity, vis-a-vis, them can be claimed, by the aggrieved petitioners, (a) more so with the final report, submitted before the learned court concerned, contrarily making echoings, vis-a-vis, the aggrieved petitioners, rather without the knowledge, of, the afore discharged accused, ensuring the illegal unloading(s), of, the cement bags, at, the apposite site. 4. Even though, the cement bags were used, for, a, public purpose. However, hence, the aggrieved may espouse for parity being accorded qua them, vis-a-vis, the discharged accused. 4. Even though, the cement bags were used, for, a, public purpose. However, hence, the aggrieved may espouse for parity being accorded qua them, vis-a-vis, the discharged accused. However, when a perusal, of, the recovery memo, unfolds, vis-a-vis, the cement bags, carrying the labels, vis-a-vis, ?Not for sale, H.P. Govt. Supply only?, and, when the rates of purchase, of, the afore cement bags by the government of H.P., is lesser, than, the rates qua whereon hence, cement bags, can become purchased, in, the open market, (a) thereupon, dehors, the factum, vis-a-vis, the aggrieved, using the recovered, cement bags, for, a, public purpose, and, also without theirs being validly disbursed to them, yet has caused prima facie wrongful loss, to, the State exchequer, and, wrongful gain, to, the aggrieved petitioners, as, the value of the recovered cement bags, is lesser, than, the one, vis-a-vis, their purchase value from the open market, by, the aggrieved. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit, in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the order impugned before this Court is maintained, and, affirmed. However, it is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd November, 2019. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications also stand disposed of.