ORDER : 1. Challenging the order, dated 07.09.2007, passed in Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 in C.C.No.17 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 2. The facts in issue are as under:- 3. A private complaint was filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, in his official capacity, against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and A-2 (since died) alleging that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 was appointed, under Section 18 Cr.P.C., as XIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, and he was in charge of Courts of XIV, XV and XVI Special Metropolitan Magistrate Courts at Secunderabad, and A-2 namely M.A. Qayyum, was working as an attendar in the said Special Metropolitan Magistrate Court. The complainant received complaints from Syed Ahmed Ali and Mohd. Ibrahim stating that when they went to the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, the attender (A2) of the Magistrate, demanded bribe of Rs.500/-, out of which Rs.300/- was to be paid to the Magistrate and Rs.200/- for him for the attestation of affidavits. Basing on the said complaints, notices were issued to the said Syed Ahmed Ali and Mohd. Ibrahim and on their appearance their statements were recorded. During the course of enquiry, it revealed that the then Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, also received complaint from P.Mallaiah, Attender of XIII Special Magistrate, Secunderabad, with regard to the collection of bribes for attestation of affidavits by the Magistrate and that the statement of said P.Mallaiah was also recorded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It is further stated that the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate made a surprise visit to the Court of XIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate and also in charge Courts and found irregularities committed by the Magistrate in imposition of fines and seized all the fine receipt books and that the statements of A.O.1 and A-2, Clerk, Record Assistant of XIII Special Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court were recorded. Thereafter, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, conducted an enquiry and obtained permission from the High Court vide proceedings No.ROC 694/SO/96, dated 28.07.1999 to launch prosecution against the accused. 4. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of P.C. Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. against the accused. Thereafter, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, conducted an enquiry and obtained permission from the High Court vide proceedings No.ROC 694/SO/96, dated 28.07.1999 to launch prosecution against the accused. 4. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of P.C. Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. against the accused. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 appeared before the trial Court in the month of September, 1999 and has been attending the Court and that the trial Court ordered process to the witnesses under Section 244 of Cr.P.C. in the year 1999 itself. Subsequently, A-2 expired and the case against him was abated. Police reported that the alleged witnesses are not available and the complainant, who filed the complaint, also expired. During pre-charge enquiry, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 to substantiate its case. At this stage, the revision petitioner/A.O.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 seeking to discharge him for the offences alleged against him and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 07.09.2007. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner/A.O.1. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.O.1 would submit that the revision petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 seeking discharge on three grounds viz., (i) A-2 died and hence the case got abated against him (ii) the complainant, who filed the private complaint, also died; and (iii) the whereabouts of two persons, who lodged complaint, are not traceable. It is submitted that though the complaint was lodged in the year 1999, the complainant did not attend the Court for 3 to 4 years and that though summons were issued several times to witnesses, they did not turn up. It is further submitted that where the whereabouts of any person is not known, it is presumed that the person is dead and hence in view of failure of prosecution to trace the two persons, who lodged complaint, subjecting the revision petitioner/A.O.1 to trial at the age of 81 years would be an abuse of process of law and prayed to discharge the revision petitioner/A.O.1 for the offences alleged against him. 7. 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases appearing for the respondent submits that there is ample evidence on record to frame charges against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and that there are no grounds to discharge him at this stage. 8. This is a private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner/A.O.1 and A-2, in the month of August, 1999. Unfortunately, the complainant died in 2001 during the pendency of the proceedings. It is evident from the record that the prosecution did not produce the aforesaid Syed Ahmed Ali and Syed Ibrahim, who sent Exs.P4 and P8-complaints to the complainant, since their whereabouts are not traceable by the police officials. Further, A-2, who demanded the alleged illegal gratification for the purpose of attestation of affidavits from the aforesaid witnesses in the name of revision petitioner/A.O.1, also expired during the pendency of the proceedings. Consequently, the case came to be abated against A-2. The liability, if any, is fixed on the revision petitioner/A.O.1 through A-2 only. There is no independent allegation against the revision petitioner. The evidence of P.W.1, who was examined during pre-charge enquiry, goes to show that he sent Ex.P1-complaint to the complainant, but he forgot to sign the complaint. That apart, the revision petitioner, who is aged about 81 years, has been attending the Court since 1999 regularly, however, the trial Court not even framed the charge against the revision petitioner. In this case, even though the private complaint was taken on file as C.C.No.17 of 1999 and the revision petitioner/A.O.1 entered appearance in the month of September, 1999, the prosecution did not produce the alleged complainants of Exs.P4 and P8 before the Court as their whereabouts are not traceable by the police officials. As a result of which, the revision petitioner is compelled to suffer the trauma of continuance of this prosecution for the past 23 years. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is liable to be discharged from the offences alleged against him. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the revision petitioner/A.O.1 is discharged from the case by setting aside the impugned order, dated 07.09.2007, passed in Crl.M.P.No.729 of 2007 in C.C.No.17 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.