Hence, this court has sought for a clarified report, and the present Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed another report dated 23.10.2014 spreads over 20 pages specifying the alleged misappropriation of amount to be shouldered by the accused coming under each division and different segments. I may say that the figures and contents of the said report have patent difference with the charge sheet already laid by CW42. At this juncture, by accepting the said report filed by the officer mentioned above, which seems to be the correct figures expected to be answered by the delinquent forest officials, it the discharge petitions are disposed of, a piquant situation may arise during trial that as the officer (the present Dy.S.P,V.A.C.B, Idukki), who had filed the report, the contents of which is in variance of the contents of the original charge sheet as being not in the array of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution will be handicapped in proving the charge going to be framed on the basis of the report filed by the present officer. Hence, I am of the view that it is necessary to obtain additional charge sheets against the accused in separate cases in the light of the report filed by the Dy.S.P, V.A.C.B, Idukki on 23.10.2014 before court by citing him as additional prosecution witness (as CW43). The discharge petitions can only be disposed of on the basis of the charge sheets directed to be filed by this order.
