( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition 1872 of 1991 is connected with the above 31 Criminal Petitions. All these criminal petitions arise out of the common order passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , 1st Court, Hubli, in C. C. No. 4638 of 1982 on 17-2-1989. ( 2 ) FOR appreciation of the point involved in these cases, I refer to the facts in C. C. No. 4638 of 1982 in which the common order has been passed. ( 3 ) ON 7-7-1982 the charge-sheet has been filed in C. C. No. 4638 of 1982 by P. S. I. , Town Police, Hubli, against the petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 477 (A), I. P. C. The matter has been pending since then, in the Court below for over eleven years. ( 4 ) THIS Court stayed further proceedings in this case and the connected cases on 30-10-1991. ( 5 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is inordinate delay in the trial of the criminal case and so proceedings should be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the material on record that after the accused appeared before the lower Court the case was posted for hearing before charge. The accused went on praying for time to address arguments on framing of charge. On 24-1-1985 the lower Court took it that there were no objections for framing of charge and posted the case for framing charge. But again the learned counsel for the accused took time to address arguments on framing of charge. ( 7 ) MEANWHILE, on 11-7-1985 the Advocate for the petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. praying that the accused should be discharged. After this application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. was filed on 11-7-1985, because of the conduct of the accused or his advocate, the arguments on this application were heard only on 16-8-1988. The lower Court, on the very day the arguments were addressed on the application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. pronounced the order dismissing the application. ( 8 ) SO what emerges ? It is obvious that the petitioner-accused took three years to address arguments on a simple application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) AFTER the application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. pronounced the order dismissing the application. ( 8 ) SO what emerges ? It is obvious that the petitioner-accused took three years to address arguments on a simple application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) AFTER the application under Section 239, Cr. P. C. was dismissed, the case was posted for framing charge. On the date it was posted for framing charge, the accused remained absent. On 25-10-1988, since the accused was absent an exemption application was filed. This exemption application was rejected and NBW was issued. NBW was recalled at a later stage. ( 10 ) JUST when the case was again posted for framing charge, the accused sprang into Court an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The Court below rejected the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on merits. This order has been challenged now in this criminal petition and the connected ones. ( 11 ) FROM the facts and circumstances stated above, it is abundantly clear that the delay, if the prosecution case could not be concluded, is not due to the conduct of the prosecution. The accused has to thank himself for the inordinate delay. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-accused that the proceedings should be quashed because the delay is due to the prosecution is without foundation. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-accused relied on the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1229 (sic) (Santosh De v. Archana Guja ). That was a case in which the prosecution was pending for fourteen years and not a single witness was examined by the prosecution. The delay was solely attributable to prosecution. The Supreme Court was, therefore, pleased to uphold the order of the High Court which had quashed the proceedings. In the instant case the boot is on the other leg. The Supreme Court authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the criminal petition and the connected criminal petitions are dismissed. The learned J. M. F. C. is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. --- *** --- .