Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–This revision is directed against the order dt. 16.8.96 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) & A.C.J.M., Anupgarh in criminal case No. 665/93. (2). The learned Magistrate was trying the accused respondent Om Prakash for offence under Secs. 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The incident is of November, 1991 and the learned Magistrate has discharged the accu- sed by the impugned order without stating any reasons and observing that the case of the accused is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India dt. 1.5.96. (3). A society called ``common causes is a society established to espouse common causes of common people of India. This society after careful consideration of the pending litigation on the criminal side of the courts in India came to the conclusion that because of the heavy arrears of cases pending shortage of judicial officers to decide the same other protectory procedure. A writ petition has been filed by the Society under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court praying for certain general directions to avoidable violation of human rights by unduly pending litigation in matters which are trifle in nature. Either by the nature of the offence or by the nature of happening which is construed as an offence and individuals are required to suffer either detention or litigation for unusually long time. Several directions were therefore, sought for and the Supreme Court of India on a careful consideration of the entire situation existing in the country and after taking into consideration the various kinds of litigation pending on the criminal side issued certain directions by its order dt. 1st May, 1996 wherein, it was directed that if cases of a particular kind are pending for a particular period or more and no further headway in the cases is possible. Then looking to the nature of the offence etc. the man should be discharged so that pendency is reduced, harassment is reduced and only harmful crimes committed by harden criminals are proceeded with indulgence. This how I read the direction issued by the Supreme Court of India on 1.5.96 in the case of the society called ``common causes that is in my opinion, what was intended by the Supreme Court while issuing those orders. (4). This how I read the direction issued by the Supreme Court of India on 1.5.96 in the case of the society called ``common causes that is in my opinion, what was intended by the Supreme Court while issuing those orders. (4). The Supreme Court of India has in exercise of its superior powers laid down certain guidelines for effective disposal of criminal cases pending for long time and have laid down certain principles by application of which such disposal is to be taken up. The order of the Supreme Court of India cannot in such circumstan-ces be read as blanket cover for granting discharge indiscriminately in all cases. (5). In order to establish that such is not the case, it is therefore, necessary that facts to the discharge are so stated as to make out a cohesive reading of appli- cation of mind to the facts of the case and application of mind indischarging the accused by applying ratio of the decision of common causes case. The citation of common causes case is not a mantra, by recital of which an order of discharge will become immune to scrutiny by higher courts. (6). It is therefore, necessary that due care taken by judicial officers whileapplying the decision of the Supreme Court, the learned Judges are requested to avoid such cryptic orders, which consequently require interference by higher courts. (7). This order cannot be sustained. The learned Magistrate has committed several jurisdictional errors which should not have been committed by him. Merely stating the date of the Supreme Court judgment which according to him covers the facts of the case is not sufficient. Judicial discipline demands that sufficient facts pertaining to the case must be stated and it must be pointed out how these facts are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the common causes case. (8). The Deputy Registrar (J.) is requested to circulate a copy of this order to the judicial officers concerned.