JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, whereby he rejected the application of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 829/94. 2. The relevant facts are that the police submitted a challan under section 447, Cr.P.C. against the petitioners on 2.12.1994. Accusation could not be read,over to the petitioners for one or the other reason before 21.8.1997. On 20.12.1996, the accused-petitioners made an application for dropping the proceedings in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 'Common Cause'. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 30.6.1997. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Mr. Khatri contends that the case against the petitioners squarely falls in category 2(e) of the cases mentioned in the judgment in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, 1996 Cr. L.R. (SC) 430 and therefore, the Magistrate has committed grave error in dismissing the application of the petitioners. He also submits that there was no legal impediment in reading over accusation to the petitioners through their counsel. He relies on the case of Chandra Mohan v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 207. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (supra) had issued certain directions for disposing of the cases pending in the various Courts of the country. The category of the cases 2(e) is relevant for our purpose which reads as under : 2(e) Where the cases pending in criminal Courts under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment upto one year, with or, without fine, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trials have still not commenced, the criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases. 5. The directions were explained in another'case Common Cause v. Union of India, 1997 Cr. L.R. (SC) 132 in which it was observed that accused are not entitled to earn any discharge of acquittal as per paragraphs 2(a) to 2(f) of the previous judgment if it is demonstrated that the accused concerned seek to take advantage of their own wrong or any other action resulting in protraction of trials against them. L.R. (SC) 132 in which it was observed that accused are not entitled to earn any discharge of acquittal as per paragraphs 2(a) to 2(f) of the previous judgment if it is demonstrated that the accused concerned seek to take advantage of their own wrong or any other action resulting in protraction of trials against them. In this case it was further observed that the trial of summons cases by Magistrate would be considered to have commenced when the accused are asked by the Magistrate as to whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. 6. A perusal of the order-sheets recorded on the file of the trial Court indicates that the petitioners appeared on 2.12.1994, but accusation was not read over to them within one year. It is obvious that for more than one year the trial had not commenced of the case which is a summon case. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the accusation could not be read over to the accused as they were not present in the Court and sought exemption for attendance. It is true that the petitioners sought exemption from personal attendance on 24.11.1995,19.4.1996 Se 28.6.1996 but the question is whether on account of the exemption the trial could not proceed. There is'no legal impediment in reading over the accusation to the counsel for the accused if exemption is granted to them. This Court in the case of Chandra Mohan (supra) has held that the trial can proceed in the absence of the accused if their personal attendance has been dispensed with. In that case also, the accused did not appear on four dates in a span of about one year and sought exemption from personal attendance. On two dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave. Same is the situation in the instant case. On three occasions the accused sought exemption, on one date the Presiding Officer was away on duty and on the other date though the accused were present in person yet the accusation was not read over. It is obvious that the trial did not proceed not on account of the wrong or any action on the part of the accused-petitioners. The learned Magistrate has obviously erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr. Case no. It is obvious that the trial did not proceed not on account of the wrong or any action on the part of the accused-petitioners. The learned Magistrate has obviously erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr. Case no. 829 /94 - State v. Madan Singh & Ors., pending in the trial Court are quashed.Petition allowed. *******