FAROOQ HASAN, J. - (1.) MANGILAL Vyas, who is petitioner in the above-noted seven petitions, has come up before this Court for quashing criminal proceedings pending against him in criminal cases (numbers of which will be mentioned in last para of this order) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu. '
(2.) EARLIER also, the petitioner had filed eight 482 Cr. P. C. petitions before this Court for quashing eight criminal cases (including the present ones) of alleged embezzlement pending against him in the trial Court. These petitions moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. bearing Nos. 702 to 709 of 1986 were dismissed by this Court on 29. 1. 1987 against which, the petitioner approached the Apex Court by way of S. L. P. which came to be decided on 23. 1 90 in Cr Appeal Nos. 522 to 529 of 1987, with the following direction : - "the High Court has directed the trial Court to proceed with the cases against the appellant day to day and decide them expeditiously. We would however direct the trial Court to dispose of the cases with in a period not exceeding one year from the date of the receipt of the records. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court forthwith. " There is no dispute that the matter relates to the embezzlement which is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the year 1963 A report of which had been lodged on 29. 11. 63 and the challan had been filed on 30. 1. 64. The trial in cr. case No. 2/74 concluded & on 22. 5. 67, the petitioner was convicted but given benefit of probation which was converted into acquittal of the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 30. 3. 63 but on 10. 9. 1971, this Court remanded the case directing the trial Court to call certain documents & dispose of the case expeditiously and against the remand order the petitioner approached the Supreme Court which directed on 11. 8 78 for completion of re-trial by day to day hearing in almost all the impugned criminal cases. In Cr. case No. 5/74 (New Nos. 180/86 & 271/86), the occurrence relates to the date 11. 8. 62 and F. I. R. was lodged on 23. 8. 67 having come to first knowledge on 30. 3. 63. In Cr. case No. 6/74 (New No. 181/86 (272/86) date of occurrence is 16. 4. 62 of which report was lodged on 22. 4. 68 whereas' its first knowledge came in light on 30. 3. 63. In Cr. case No. 9/74 (New No 182/86 (268/86), date of occurrence is 16. 4. 62 report of which was lodged on 22. 4. 68 having come to first knowledge on 30. 3. 63. In Cr. case No. 12/74 (New No. 185/86 (266/86) the incident relates to 16. 12. 61 having come to first knowledge on 30. 3. 63 whereas report of which was lodged on 15. 5 69 In Cr case No. 11/74 (New No. 184/86 (285/86), the occurrence relates to 16. 11. 61 whereas it has come to the knowledge firstly on 30. 3. 63 but its report was lodged on 17. 2. 69. And, in Cr. case No. 23/74 (New No. 186/86 & 267/86) the alleged date of occurrence is 16. 4. 62 having come to the knowledge firstly on 30. 3. 63 but the F. I. R. was filed on 17. 2. 69. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Much stress was laid by Shri R. S. Rathore, arguing counsel on behalf of the petitioner on contending that despite directions issued twice by the Supreme Court of India, one on 11. 8. 7. 8 & secondly on 23. 1. 90, the criminal cases in question are still pending before the trial Court. Undoubtedly, the record was received by the trial Court on 7. 2. 1990 after second direction. Thereafter, on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, the petitioner alongwith his counsel appeared and never sought any adjournment. Shri Rathore voci forcely contended that it was on account of laches and non-compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court of the country that seven criminal cases in question are still pending, inasmuch as outer-limit & ceiling period for disposal of the cases have expired. According to Shri Rathore, the only consequence which must follow is that the proceedings must be quashed and the cases should be terminated.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the cases have been finally heard by the trial Court and are fixed for pronouncing judgments. He submitted that the directions issued by the Supreme Court have fully been complied with and looking to the proceedings, there appears no reason or emergence to quash the proceedings. I have considered the points raised and a glance at the record with the aid of the learned counsel for the parties, as and when required during the course of arguments. It is cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that the directions issued by the Highest Court must be complied with in letter and spirit, otherwise very purpose of the directions will be defeated and moreso, continuance of the proceedings after 8. 2. 1991 amounts to disrespect of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. ;