K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) XX xx xx ( 2 ) XX xx xx ( 3 ) XX xx xx ( 4 ) XX xx xx ( 5 ) XX xx xx ( 6 ) ). . . FIFTHLY, to yet one more disturbing feature to which the learned A. P. P. Mr. Mehta has invited the attention of this Court, is the fact that in all these cases, though the proceedings continued for about two years, yet no Rojkam proceedings showing the manner in which the same proceeded (if proceeded at all) has been maintained. Giving the details, the learned A. P. P. further submitted that all complaints came to be registered as criminal cases as far back as on 2-4-1988 and yet they remained totally unattended all throughout for about two years, when on 8-3-1990, in all suddenness, accused pleading guilty, he came to be convicted and let off lightly with a nominal fine of Rs. 100/- despite the record of previous conviction and sentence against him for the very same offence. This situation raises grave doubts regarding the legality, propriety and fairness of the trial. Now whatever has been submitted by the learned A. P. P. has lot of substance. This is indeed very sad and shocking. To keep the cases in cold-storage in this fashion without its date-wise proceedings being reflected in rojkam proceedings, is a very serious matter calling for the immediate explanation of the concerned learned magistrate and can never be countenanced lightly. It appears that these are not the only cases wherein such gross irregularity in not maintaining the Rojkam has taken place, as it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned a. P. P. that in group of some other 27 cases under the Factories Act, 1948 (Criminal Case Nos. 1384/90 to 1410/90, decided on 16-5-1990, by the learned J. M. F. C. , Gandhidham, wherein appeals for enhancement of sentence being criminal Appeal Nos. 548/90 to 574/90 have been filed before this Court) neither rojkam proceedings are maintained nor the served copies of summons have been preserved on record. 1384/90 to 1410/90, decided on 16-5-1990, by the learned J. M. F. C. , Gandhidham, wherein appeals for enhancement of sentence being criminal Appeal Nos. 548/90 to 574/90 have been filed before this Court) neither rojkam proceedings are maintained nor the served copies of summons have been preserved on record. Luckily, it appears that in those 27 cases, on the very first day of hearing, the accused appeared and pleaded guilty and therefore the proceedings came to be terminated immediately, but none-the-less, the fact remains that neither Rojkam proceedings were maintained nor any other record is preserved as stated above. This sort of lethargy, indifference and irregularity in maintenance of Rojkam proceedings and other record is indeed an eye-opener for any one of us necessitating urgent directions to be issued to all the learned District and sessions Judges of the State to henceforth maintain strict vigil preferably by taking out repeated and surprise inspections of the Rojkam proceedings and the record of the subordinate courts in order to avoid any such unfortunate eventualities taking place in future. If an appropriate care and anxiety as directed above is not taken, the same will seriously undermine the quality and credibility of the administration of justice in future. The Rojkam proceedings are both windows and the light in which the conduct of proceedings and the presiding judges can be viewed and watched. Thus, taking off eyes from it in a given case can bring about disasterous result by way of serious injustice to some party and disrepute to the fair name and glory of the Court of Justice. Moment any plaint, complaint or charge-sheets are filed before the court and the judicial notice of it is taken of the same, (by registering the cases as criminal or civil cases, as the case may be), the proceedings are instituted and set in motion - account opened and once the same has begin till the time it is terminated finally, the court case diary must start and go on recording and reflecting date-to-date proceedings by way of Rojkam. Under no circumstances, except as permitted by the relevant Rules nos. 76 to 80 (pertaining to Rojkam) under the Criminal Manual, the maintenance of Rojkam can be dispensed with. Under no circumstances, except as permitted by the relevant Rules nos. 76 to 80 (pertaining to Rojkam) under the Criminal Manual, the maintenance of Rojkam can be dispensed with. The attentioon of all the courts is further invited to the decision of this court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Lalit Mohan, reported in 1989 (2) G. L. R. 952, wherein some useful guidelines have been given regarding the maintenance of the Rojkam proceedings and the manner of conducting trials. It is hoped that in future subordinate courts will pay proper attention to the observations made hereinabove in matters of maintenance of Rojkam proceedings, preserving other records, and conducting the trials. .