Judgment R.A.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this revision challenging the order dated 3.3.1998, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, discharging the accused opposite party No. 1 Asit Sarkar. 2. Vide order dated 5.5.1998, which is reproduced below, this Court had directed for issue of notice to opposite party No. 1 by registered as well as ordinary process : -- Issue notice to opposite party No. 1 as to why this revision application be not admitted and if possible, disposed of at the admission stage itself for which requisite etc. by registered cover as also ordinary process must be filed by Monday next, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. It has been stated that the notice pursuant to the above order has been served on opposite party No. 1 but none has appeared on his behalf. 3 In view of the terms of the order dated 5.5.1998 this revision is, therefore, liable to be decided at the admission stage. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the state. None appears for opposite party No. 1. 5. The facts leading to the present controversy are as under: -- A case under Secs. 120-B, 161, 218, 409, 420, 467. 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Secs. 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) & 5(2), read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was lodged against the opposite party No. 1 and others, who are the employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Sanction for their prosecution was granted on 21.5.1996 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 29.6.1996. The opposite party No. l moved a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case regarding which the aforesaid charge-sheet was issued. Sanction for their prosecution was granted on 21.5.1996 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 29.6.1996. The opposite party No. l moved a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in this Court for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case regarding which the aforesaid charge-sheet was issued. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 31.7.1997 disposed of the said quashing petition vide judgment dated 31st July, 1997, the operative portion of which is reproduced below: Considering the nature and circumstances of the case and the report of the Special Judge which was called for in course of hearing of this case, it is felt that some time may be given to finish up the trial against the petitioner and if within the time frame the trial is not concluded, the petitioner, therefore, may get the benefit of discharge. In that view of the matter, Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi, is hereby directed to split up the case of the petitioner, if necessary, when other accused persons are not appearing even after coercive steps to be taken from the side of the Special Judge and the petitioner may be discharged if the trial is not concluded within six months next from the date of presentation of a copy of the order from the side of the petitioner. 6. It appears that on 22.8.1997 non-bailable warrant was issued against the absenting accused persons and an intimation to that effect was also given to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, fixing 9.9.1997 as the next date for appearance. On 9.9.1997 the processes under Secs. 82 and 83 to the Code with non-bailable warrant of arrest against the absconding accused persons was directed to be issued fixing 4.10.1997 as the next date in the case. Due to annual vacation the Court below remained closed from 7.10.1997 to 7.11.1997 and thereafter there was strike of non-gazetted employees of the Court below from 19.11.1997 to 7.12.1997. About two weeks thereafter, there was winter holidays from 25.12.1997 to 31.12.1997 and the case was taken up on 7.1.1998, on which date the trial of the absconding accused persons was separated, and 13.1.1998 was fixed for the supply of police papers. On 13.1.1998 the police papers were supplied to the accused opposite party No. 1 and 16.1.1998 was fixed for hearing on charges. 7. On 13.1.1998 the police papers were supplied to the accused opposite party No. 1 and 16.1.1998 was fixed for hearing on charges. 7. On 16.1.1998 the learned Special Judge was on leave. On that date a petition was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 for supply of certain papers and on 17.1.1998 an order was passed for supply for those papers. On 19.1.1998 those papers were supplied to opposite party No. 1. On 20.1.1998 a petition for discharge of the accused on the ground of non-conclusion of trial within six months from the date of order of this Court dated 31.1.1997 passed in the petition under Sec. 482 of the Code was moved. 8. On 5.2.1998 the learned Special Judge sent a report to the Joint Registrar of this Court at Ranchi seeking further time. The learned Single Judge on 24.2.1998 passed an order on the said report observing that the report should not have been sent directly to this Court. It was also mentioned that opposite party No. 1 has already moved an application before the Special Judge for compliance of this Courts order dated 31st July, 1997, and the Special Judge was directed to pass order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the above orders or this Court, the Special Judge has discharged the accused opposite party No. 1 observing that he has no option but to discharge him in view of the time limit fixed by this Court for conclusion of the trial. As mentioned hereinbefore being aggrieved by the said order, the Board has filed this revision. 9. Opposite party No. 1, who was an employee of the Board, has been charged for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act. In such matters the Apex Court has laid down that although the trial should be concluded as early as possible but time limit should not be fixed. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Common Cause V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- , wherein the directions as regard the expeditious disposal of the criminal cases were made. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Common Cause V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- , wherein the directions as regard the expeditious disposal of the criminal cases were made. However in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment it was expressly made clear that those directions shall not apply to cases of offences involving corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating under the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act etc. This case was further explained in Common Cause V/s. Union of India and Ors. -- . 10. Admittedly it is not in dispute that the opposite party No. 1 is involved in a case of offence of corruption and the charges against him are very serious. In such circumstances, the time limit was not liable to be fixed in such a case. The learned Judge, who passed the order dated 31st July, 1997, has merely observed that the petitioner may be discharged if the trial is not concluded within six months". In view of the use of the word may in the said order discretion was still left with the Special Judge regarding the discharge of the accused. 11. It appears that the learned Special Judge construed the order of this Court dated 31st July, 1997 as if he is bound to discharge the accused if the trial is not concluded within six months, irrespective of the facts in question As mentioned above that does not appear to be the position in view of the use of the word may in the order. 12. That apart, the accused opposite party himself was partly responsible for non-completion of the trial within six months. The petitioner is in no way responsible for delay in trial. The employees who are charged for serious corruption cases if allowed to let off without trial it would have serious repercussion. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this revision should be allowed. 14. This revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.3.1998, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi, in Special Case No. 3/86 is quashed. The Special Judge is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same at an early date.