ORDER : This petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 12.02.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Humnabad, in C.C.No.463/2013 and the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, in Criminal Revision Petition No.14/2016 and consequently to discharge the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Brief facts are that, a private complaint was filed by one Sakharam against six accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 403, 419, 420, 465 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 95 and 96 of the KLR Act. The Court of Principal JMFC at Humnabad, by an order dated 29.01.2013 referred the said complaint to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 of IPC. 4. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2. They filed an application under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court seeking discharge from the case. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 12.02.2016 rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court. The said revision petition also came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 27.04.2016. Petitioners are therefore before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Case of the prosecution is that, an extent of 8 acres of land in Sy.No.340/2B of Chitguppa village, Humnabad Taluk was granted in favour of one Dr. K.Devidas (Accused No.3) on 21.09.1965 for the purpose of construction of leprosy hospital and quarters at Chitguppa village, Humnabad Taluk. The said Dr. K.Devidas under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2001, sold four acres of the said land in favour of one Mohd. Hussain (Accused No.4). The allegations against the present petitioners are that, they being the employees in the revenue department have proceeded to sanction mutation in respect of the above land in the name of Mohd. Hussain (Accused No.4) i.e., purchaser of the land, without making any enquiry. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that grant in favour of accused No.3 is in the year 1965. Hussain (Accused No.4) i.e., purchaser of the land, without making any enquiry. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that grant in favour of accused No.3 is in the year 1965. Said accused No.3 is alleged to have sold a portion of the property in favour of accused No.4 by a registered sale deed dated 13.07.2001. According to the prosecution, the said sale is in violation of the grant order. However, there is no grant order available, which is clear from the letter of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of conditions of the grant order. He submits that private complaint is filed in the year 2013 and therefore, there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. He further submits that the petitioners were working as Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector and they retired in the year 2005 and 2003 respectively. Complaint filed after a lapse of eight years from the date of retirement, is not maintainable against a public servant. He submits that the petitioners are innocent. Only allegation against them is that they being the officials of the revenue department have mutated the property in the name of purchaser without making any enquiry. The same is without any basis. He further submits that accused Nos.5 and 6 are the attesting witnesses to the sale deed. However, they have been dropped from the charge sheet. Even accused No.4, purchaser of the property has been dropped from the charge sheet and he is shown as one of the witnesses (CW.9). He further submits that accused No.3 is no more and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a futile exercise as there are no material against them. Hence, he seeks to discharge them from the case. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that during the relevant point of time, petitioners were working as Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector respectively. The land in question was granted to accused No.3 for the purpose of construction of Leprosy Hospital and quarters. Accused No.3 in violation of the grant order, sold the portion of property to accused No.4. The present petitioners being the public servants working in the revenue department have sanctioned the mutation with respect to the property without proper verification and therefore, he submits that there are sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed against them. Accused No.3 in violation of the grant order, sold the portion of property to accused No.4. The present petitioners being the public servants working in the revenue department have sanctioned the mutation with respect to the property without proper verification and therefore, he submits that there are sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed against them. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 8. Heard the rival contentions and also perused the material on record. 9. The case of the prosecution is that, in the year 1965, land measuring 8 acres carved out of Sy.No.340 was allotted in favour of accuse No.3 by name Devidas by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of construction of a Leprosy Hospital and Quarters at Chitguppa village. The said accused in violation of the grant order, sold 4 acres of land to accused No.4 by way of registered sale deed executed on 13.07.2001 in the presence of accused Nos.5 and 6. The present accused namely accused Nos.1 and 2 were working as officials of revenue department. Allegations against them are that without verifying the documents and without making any enquiry, they have mutated the property in the name of the purchaser. 10. It is not disputed that the petitioners were working as Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector respectively during the relevant time. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is in the year 2001. The petitioners retired from their respective posts in the year 2005 and 2003 respectively. The private complaint came to be filed on 29.01.2013. The said complaint was referred to police for investigation. It is pertinent to see that initially complaint was filed against accused No.1 to 6. While filing the charge sheet, the police have deleted the names of accused Nos.5 and 6. The name of accused No.4, the purchaser of property was also deleted and he was shown as CW-9. 11. The entire case of prosecution is based on the grant order issued in the year 1965. Annexure-E is the letter dated 12.6.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The said letter was issued to the Police Inspector stating that the original grant order No. KAM/L.N.D./CR1825/64-65 in respect of Sy.No.340 was not available in the records. 11. The entire case of prosecution is based on the grant order issued in the year 1965. Annexure-E is the letter dated 12.6.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The said letter was issued to the Police Inspector stating that the original grant order No. KAM/L.N.D./CR1825/64-65 in respect of Sy.No.340 was not available in the records. Further Annexure-E1 is the endorsement dated 09.03.2015 given by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, stating that there is no violation of the grant order since the land in question is being used by the purchaser for the same purpose for which it was granted. Annexure-F is the endorsement issued by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburgi Division, wherein it is stated that the proceedings initiated to recover the land was dropped in view of the report and recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner stating that there is no violation of the land grant order. It is also pertinent to see that accused No.3 is no more as he is reported to be dead on 04.01.2018. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.200195/2014 disposed of on 20.02.2014, in the case of Vithalachar vs. The State through Afzalpur P.S. Relying on the KCS Rules, it is observed therein that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution as per the said rule. 13. Admittedly in the present case the offence alleged to have committed by the petitioners is in the year 2001. Accused/petitioners retired by 2005 and 2003 respectively. The cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on 29.01.2013. Hence, on the said ground also the proceedings now initiated against the petitioners cannot be allowed to be continued. 14. For the foregoing reasons, it cannot be said that there are sufficient material against the petitioners to proceed against them. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.463/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Humnabad and the order dated 27.04.2016 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.14/2016 on the file of IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.02.2016 passed in C.C.No.463/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Humnabad and the order dated 27.04.2016 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.14/2016 on the file of IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Basavakalyan, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the accused/petitioners are discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420 of IPC.