Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 19th June, 1997, 4th July, 1997 and 29th July, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) Anupgarh, in criminal case No. 168/96 State vs. Jagraj Singh and others whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate adjourned the hearing of the case from time to time for the purpose of disposing of the application, filed by the accused-petitioners for dropping proceedings in accordance with the directions given by the Honble Apex Court in ``Common cause A Registered Society through its Director vs. Union of India and Others (1). (3). The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even in the absence of application by the accused-petitioner it was the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to have complied with the provisions given by the Honble Apex Court in (1996 Criminal Law Reporter (SC) Page 430) and, therefore, when the application has been filed by the accused-petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that proceedings had been initiated against them more than one year ago, it was necessary for the Judicial Magistrate to have disposed of the petition expeditiously without adjourning the hearing of the case. (4). I have carefully considered the above submission. It is true that the directions given by a Superior Court have to be complied with by the lower Courts sincerely and expeditiously but it cannot be denied that in complying with the directions they have to apply their mind to find out whether the case before them is squarely covered by the directions given by the Superior Court. If any accused person wants acquittal or discharge or wants revocation of the order by which cognizance was taken or proceedings were initiated against him under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he may apply to the concerned Court and then it would be the duty of the concerned Court to consider the application and decide it on merits after due application of the judicial mind. The duty to pass and order expeditiously does not dispense with the necessity of application of judicial mind by the lower Courts. The duty to pass and order expeditiously does not dispense with the necessity of application of judicial mind by the lower Courts. A duty to act with due care and caution after applying judicial mind to the prayer made before them and brought to the notice, is not taken away by the fact that certain direction has been given to them. In the instant case it appears that prayer was made before the learned Judicial Magistrate for filing reply of the application moved by the accused-petitioners. It has been recognised as a well established principle of administration of justice that before a matter is decide against a certain party the opportunity of hearing must be given. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate was requested to grant adjournment for the purpose of filing the reply and he granted time for filing the reply. There does not appear to be anything wrong in it. The prosecution was entitled to be heard before the proceedings against the accused are dropped. (5). For reasons mentioned above the impugned orders dated 19th June, 1997, 4th July, 1997 and 29th July, 1997 by which time was granted to the prosecution to file the reply was just and proper and do not amount to abuse of the process of the Court so far as act of the Court is concerned. (6). The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in 1996 Criminal Law Reporter (SC) Page 430, entitle the accused- petitioners to get the proceedings initiated against them dropped on the ground that the proceedings initiated before the lower Court have remained pending for more than one year. I may be pointed out that in ``Common cause a Registered Society vs. Union of India the Honble Supreme Court has clarified the instruction given by their Lordships by the Judgment dated 28th November, 1996 reported in Criminal Law Journal 1997 (SC) Page 195. In view of the judgment dated 28th November, 1996 of the Honble Supreme Court, it is nece- ssary that the application filed by the accused-petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate should be disposed of after taking into consideration the directions contained in 1996 Criminal Law Reporter (SC) Page 430 as well as the direction contained in 1997 Criminal Law Journal Page 195. (7). (7). It appears that the prosecution has sought adjournment on more than one occasion for filing the reply. Prosecution in criminal cases means the State which is the prosecutor. If the cases are expected to disposed of expeditiously it is necessary that the State must not seek more adjournments unnecessarily for the purpose of prosecuting the case. In view of the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor has taken sufficient adjournments for filing the reply, it is hereby direc- ted, that after the passing of this order, not more than one opportunity shall be given to the prosecution to file the reply. If the prosecution in spite of that opportunity does not file the reply the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the petition filed by the accused-petitioners without granting any further adjournment for filing the reply. (8). With above observation the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the lower Court for information and necessary action.