The prosecution of an accused person after discharge or acquittal is an abuse of process of the court and is liable to be quashed.

( 1 ) THE applicant Prakash chandra Jaiswal was a Sub-Inspector in L. I. U. (Local Intelligence Unit) posted in District Farrukhabad, in the year 1975-77. A report was lodged agaist him and another person by Sri Ram Prakash Tripathi, a Member of Parliament. An investigation was made and a charge-sheet was submitted on 18-12-78 under Ss. 161, 120b, I. P. C. and S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was registered as S. T. No. 1 of 1979 before the Court of Special Judge, Farrukhabad. The petitioner has quoted in para 20 of the affidavit that as many as 50 dates were fixed in this case in the said trial. During the long drawn trial on 50 different dates evidence of 25 witnesses could be recorded besides one Court witness. One defence witness was also examined. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by his judgment dated 10-11-81 discharged the accused applicant for want of proper sanction for the prosecution in offences under the provisions of prevention of Corruption Act etc. The petitioner was already suspended w. e. f. 31-12-77. The suspension order continued even after the discharge of the accused applicant. The co-accused of the applicant Chatrapati Singh, Head constable who was also discharged along with the applicant had also applied for reinstatement with the applicant to the S. S. P. Jhanshi. The co-accused Chhatrapti Singh, Head constable was reinstated but the applicant was not reinstated.

( 2 ) A fresh charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant after moving the defect pointed out in the judgment of discharge passed by the Sessions Judge. A fresh S. T. No. 2 of 1983 was registered against the applicant on 24/08/1983. Again in the fresh sessions trial, 38 dates were fixed. The applicant is resident of District Aligarh and he had to attend the Court at Farrukhabad on each and every date in the said trial. The agony of the trial continued till the end of July, 1986.

( 3 ) AFTER 38 dates in the trial before the Special Judge, the learned Judge expressed himself that he would like to re-examine the witnesses afresh as the old procedure adopted by his predecessor was wrong. After recording the statements on 28-8-86, which was 51st date in the second trial, the Special Judge (P. C. Act) directed the Addl. Government Advocate to file application for spiliting of the case. Thus, an application was moved by the learned Addl. Government Advocate and one Sessions trial was spirited into seven sessions trials and numbered as separate Sessions Trials.

( 4 ) AN application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. was filed by the applicant against the order dated 10-7-85 before this Honble Court and Hon. V. P. Mathur, J. was pleased to dispose of the petition No. 7255 of 1988 with observation that "in view of the fact that the applicant is retiring shortly and the case is lingering on since long, it will be just and proper to expect that Special Judge (P. C. Act) Farrukhabad completes the S. T. No. 2/83 State v. Prakash Chandra Jaiswal expeditiously without unnecessary delay and an effort to see that entire evidence is completed within a reasonable time. "

( 5 ) FURTHER four witnesses of the prosecution were re-examined.

( 6 ) A writ petition No. nil of 1986 was filed before the Division Bench for quashing the order of suspension pending prosecution of the applicant for offences under Ss. 161, 120b, I. P. C. read with S. 5 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act. The petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under S. 482, Cr. P. C. Thus, the applicant filed the present application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings, as stated above.

( 7 ) IN spite of time granted to the opposite parties, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit to the affidavit and the application. The petition is expected by the order of the Honble Chief Justice. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted firstly that the prosecution of the applicant is wholly illegal and abuse of process