JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The point involved in both these matters is same and as such the matters are being disposed of by common judgment. The applicants claim benefit of Circular dated 7th May, 1976 issued by the Government of Maharashtra.

2. In Criminal Application No. 1598 of 1997, the applicant has been prosecuted for offence under section 409 I.P.C. It is alleged that the applicant had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,461.19 during 19-1-1983 to 17-2-1983. On 17-2-1983, the misappropriation was noticed by the Revenue Inspector and the applicant deposited of the misappropriated amount on 21-2-1983 and 22-2-1983. He filed an application before the Magistrate seeking directions to be issued to the State to withdraw the prosecution or in the alternative to hold that the prosecution stands withdrawn fictionally. This application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati vide order dated 15-4-1993. The said order was challenged by the applicant before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati vide order dated 15th July, 1997, dismissed the revision.

3. In Criminal Application No. 1845 of 2000, the applicant was charge-sheeted for offence under sections 409, 420 read with section 34 of I.P.C. for defalcation of an amount of Rs. 1,39,203.37. This defalcation was detected by the auditor on 30-7-1987 and the applicants deposited the said amount of Rs. 1,39,203.37 on 4-8-1987. The applicants filed an application relying upon the circular of the State of Maharashtra for discharge/acquittal. The Magistrate rejected this application. Revision was filed against the said order by the applicants and the revision was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, by order dated 13th October, 2000. This matter was, ordered to be taken along with the Criminal Application No. 1598 of 1997.

4. Learned Advocate Shri J.T. Gilda argued on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1598 of 1997. Learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar argued on behalf of the applicants in Criminal Application No. 1845 of 2000 and learned A.P.P. argued on behalf of the State.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Gilda after placing reliance on (Dagdu Shamrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1983(2) Bom.C.R. 424; (Vasant Purushottam Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra)2, in Criminal Revision Application No. 156 of 1987; (Natha Shankar Kutharwade v. State of Maharashtra)3, reported in 1992 Mh.L.J. 580 and (Asaram Kishanrao Bhaware v. State of Maharashtra)4, reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 695, urged before me that the circular in question is of general application and in view of the aforesaid judgments the proceedings be quashed. Learned Advocate Mrs. Sirpurkar adopted the submissions made by the Advocate Shri Gilda.

6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. urged before me that the P.P. has not applied for withdrawal and that directions cannot be issued to the prosecution agency to withdraw the matter. His further contention is that the circular in question is not of general application but it only applies to village panchayat and the applicants in both the cases are not covered by the circular in question. It is also urged that the circular has no statutory force. Learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on judgment of (Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others)5, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 194 and (Abdul Karim and others v. State of Karnataka and others)6, reported in 2000(8) S.C.C. 710.

7. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 1598 of 1997 is a Patwari and working in the Revenue Department of Government of Maharashtra. The applicant in Criminal Application No. 1845 of 2000 is working in M.S.E.B. which is controlled by the Government. However, according to the learned A.P.P. the said applicant is not a Government employee and it is further pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that the misappropriation was in respect of a Co-operative Credit Society run for the employees of the Maharasht

Click Here to Read the rest of this document