Government orders. The trial court found that the accused/petitioners had suppressed the name of the defacto complainant namely, C.Kipson, who is the eligible applicant. The trial Court, after considering the entire materials on record, found that the petitioners committed the offences under Sections 120-B, 167 and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) rw 13(1)(d)(i) (ii)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by misusing their official position as public servants and by issuing illegal transfer orders in violation of G.O.Nos.145, 131, 259, 158, 129 and 139 and the District Office Manual Rule 41. The trial court also rejected the petitioners' plea that there was an inordinate delay between filing of FIR and the charge sheet. The trial court rejected the plea of limitation by holding that under Section 468 Cr.P.C, the power of taking cognizance after the period of limitation was restricted to the offences punishable for imprisonment for a period exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The trial court also found that the transfer orders were issued for administrative exigency without any complaint being filed against the teachers and therefore held that a prima facie case was made out. The trial court also found that the contention of the petitioners that they had issued the transfer orders as per the procedure and no offence was committed by
