(1) BY its judgment dated 29/09/1983. the High court of Patna quashed the prosecution against the respondent in respect of offences under Ss. 1203,420,468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction unde" S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code before the commencement of the trial.

(2) MR. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgment of the High court is sustainable on the ground that the seizure was not proper and the evidence collected does not show that the respondent had committed any crime. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted as early as in the year 1979 and the total amount which is alleged to have been misappropriated by the respondent was only to the tune of Rs. 25,840.00. We are afraid that it is not permisi.ble for us to appieciate these submissions of the learned counsel at this stage when evidence has as yet to be led. In our opinion, the course adopted by the High court to appreciate the "evidence" was not proper. The observations made with regard to the alleged unsatisfactory nature of the evidence by the High court, to say the least, were premature.

(3) AFTER goin