The delay in laying charge-sheet can be condoned in the interests of justice, and the petitioner's contentions should be decided on merits during the trial.

The petitioner in the above Crl. R.P. and Crl. M.C. is the same person. He is the accused in C.C. No. 188 of 1994 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mavelikkara.

2. Crl. R.P. No. 770 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7-10-1998 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara in C.M.P. No. 8982/98 filed by him under S. 239, Cr.P.C. to discharge him, dismissing the petition. Crl. M.C. No. 5694 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 23-10-1998 in C.M.P. No. 10517/98 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara dismissing the application filed by him under S. 468(2)(c) read with S. 469(1)(b), Cr.P.C. to acquit him in the case since the charge-sheet is filed against him after the expiry of the period of limitation. Since the petitioner has filed the above Crl. R.P. and Cr. M.C. in respect of the very same case pending before the lower Court, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.

3. On the basis of the complaint laid by the Assistant Engineer of KIP (RB) section on 20-7-1989 the Nooranad Police registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 178/89 alleging offence punishable under S. 406, IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner herein had executed an agreement with the Superintending Engineer, KAP R. B. Circle, Kottarakara on 4-11-1985 with regard to the Kurathikadu KIP RBC formation from chainage 0 to 6800 meters including CD works and while executing the work during the period from 20-5-1989 to 11-7-1989 the petitioner misappropriated certain departmental materials supplied to him for the execution of the work to the value of Rs. 3.50 lakhs and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under S. 406, I.P.C. After investigation the Nooranand Police laid charge-sheet against the petitioner which was taken on file as C.C. No. 188/94 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikara.

4. The petitioner had filed Crl. M.C. No. 1035 of 1995 before this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 188/94 and this Court disposed of that petition giving liberty to the petitioner to urge his contentions before the lower Court including the plea of discharge under S. 239, Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 8982/98 before the lower Court seeking discharge under S. 239, Cr.P.C. and that petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by finding that the documents filed by the prosecution show that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and the contentions raised by him are to be decided on merits after taking evidence by the order impugned in Crl. R.P. No. 770 of 1998. Thereafter while the above Crl. R.P. filed by the petitioner was pending before this Court the petitioner has filed C.M.P. No. 10517/98 before the lower Court to acquit him on the ground that the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and therefore the entire proceedings are hit by S. 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. and as such the Court is barred from taking cognizance of this case. That petition was dismissed by the lower Court by the order impugned in Crl. M.C. No. 5694/98.

5. The petitioner has contended that absolutely no ingredients of the offence punishable under S. 406, I.P.C. is brought out in this case and if at all there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore the entire prosecution launched against him is liable to be quashed.

6. The contention of the petitioner that he had entered into another agreement with the respondents with regard to the execution of another work in the same project a similar complaint was filed against the petitioner regarding that agreement also alleging similar offence which was registered by the Mavelikara Police in Crime No. 177/89 and the same was referred by the police as mistake of fact after investigation and vigilance enquiry conducted regarding that case also arrived at the very same conclusion and therefore the ver