THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 3177 of 2010. ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the final report filed by the police, Ananthapur Rural Police Station in Cr.No. 6 of 2009. The petitioner is A.3 in the above said crime. He was booked for the offences under Sections 407, 109 r/w 34 IPC and 7(i) of E.C. Act. The sum and substance of the allegation is that on the direction of the petitioner who was in charge of MLS Point (Urban) Ananthapur, 178 bags of PDS rice was transported to black market and on verification of the stock, it was noticed that there was variation of 2.03 quintals of PDS rice in the stock. The basis for implicating the petitioner in the crime is the confession made by A.1 who was the driver of the vehicle in which the PDS rice was transported. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the same charges, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the District Supply Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dt. 10.7.2009 to the Joint Collector & EOED, APSCSCL, Ananthapur, who exonerated the petitioner from the charges, by his Proceedings No. P.Admn.56(1)/2008-09 dt. 23.7.2009. I have perused the enquiry report filed along with the criminal petition. The Enquiry Officer, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both parties, found that the variation (shortage) of 02.03 Qtls. was accounted for the stock handled during January, 2009 by the petitioner and therefore he cannot be held responsible for the stock allegedly seized. Further, except the confession made by A.1 who was the driver of the vehicle in which the alleged stock was transported, there is no other documentary evidence found in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court between P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bhihar [(1996) 9 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “At the outset we may point out that the learned Counsel for the respondent could not but accept the position that the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings. He also accepted that in the present case, the charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did not dispute the findings rendered in the departmental proceedings and the ultimate result of it. On these premises, if we proceed further then there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the appellant. For if the charge which is identical could not be established in a departmental proceedings and in view of the admitted discrepancies in the reports submitted by the valuers one wonders what is there further to proceed against the appellant in criminal proceedings.” Since the petitioner/A.3 has been exonerated by the Joint Collector, Anathapur from the Departmental Proceedings initiated against him basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer and since there is no documentary evidence against him and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, the prosecution of the petitioner on the same charges is a futile exercise and therefore the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the final report filed by the Police, Ananthapur Rural Police Station in Cr.No. 6 of 2009 is hereby quashed. The criminal petition is allowed. ______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 06.10.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. CRL. PETITION No. 3177 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 06.10.2010.