ORDER : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quash of proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 09/2020, on the file of the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB, Rajamahendravaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard Sri P. Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Sri. Mannava Sravan Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, representing on behalf of the state. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that earlier the petitioner filed W.P. No. 17904 of 2024 and obtained orders dated 29.08.2024, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the trial Court Judge to take up the matter for trial on a day-to-day basis and dispose of the case preferably not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel would further submit that even after one year, the trial is not completed. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from ill health. Learned counsel would further submit that it is a case of double jeopardy, since the department has already taken action against the petitioner and imposed punishment. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Antony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another , (1999) 3 SCC 679 and G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat , (2006) 5 SCC 446 wherein it was held that when both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings lie on same set of facts led by same evidence, without there being any difference, the delinquent employee cannot be prosecuted twice under guise of two proceedings. Learned counsel finally prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, would submit that as per the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, 76 witnesses were cited and, so far, 41 witnesses have been examined. The trial is in progress. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the question of double jeopardy does not arise in this matter. Learned Special Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. The trial is in progress. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the question of double jeopardy does not arise in this matter. Learned Special Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made, a fair look at the material placed on record, and as rightly put by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is not a case of double jeopardy, since the departmental action against the individual and the criminal charges against him are two separate and distinct proceedings. The law on this point is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Bhushan Prasad v. CISF , (2019) 7 SCC 797 has held as follows: 19. We are in full agreement with the exposition of law laid down by this Court and it is fairly well settled that two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. Even the rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. Acquittal by the court of competent jurisdiction in a judicial proceeding does not ipso facto absolve the delinquent from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authority. …” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In that view, this criminal petition is disposed of. It is left open to the petitioner to raise all such contentions before the trial Court. The learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take an appropriate decision according to law at the appropriate time. The learned Special Judge is requested to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible by taking up the matter on a day-to-day basis, since the petitioner is suffering from severe health issues. The learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take an appropriate decision according to law at the appropriate time. The learned Special Judge is requested to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible by taking up the matter on a day-to-day basis, since the petitioner is suffering from severe health issues. The learned Special Judge is requested to communicate the progress of the case to the Registrar (Judicial) every two months. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.