JUDGMENT 1. - Their Lordships of the Supreme court in 'Common Cause' case ( 1996 (6) SCC 775 ) indicated that accused concerned shall not be entitled to earn any discharge or acquittal if it is demonstrated that they sought to take advantage of their own wrong or any other action of their own resulting in protraction of trial against them. 2. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner vociferously contended that the court below could not proceed under section 251 Cr.RC. without first supplying the copy of police report and other documents to the accused petitioner as mandated under section 207 Cr.RC. in Chapter XVI (Commencement of proceedings before Magistrate). The petitioners were not furnished with the copies of the police report for more than five years and only on April 19, 1997 the copies were furnished to them. The fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed to the petitioners has been violated and the proceedings of criminal case No. 234/91 under Section 325/451 IPC deserve to be quashed. 3. Mr. S.M. Poddar, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused petitioners. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record. 5. Substance of accusation was explained to the accused petitioner on June 23, 1992 and case was posted for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Public Prosecutor was directed to supply required copies of documents to the accused. A look at the order sheets of the proceedings of the trial court demonstrates that invariably applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on behalf of the accused persons have been moved. Though from the order sheet dated April 19, 1997 it is evident that copies of the documents were supplied to the accused on the said date but from the record it is also revealed that order dated September 1Q, 1984 taking cognizance under section 325 and 451 IPC. was called in question by the accused persons by filing revision. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Sikar vide order dated August 11, 1989 dismissed the revision. A look at the order dated August 11, 1989 shows that the accused petitioners had knowledge of entire facts of the case and revision petition was drafted by their counsel after examining entire record. 6. there is yet another aspect of the matter. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Sikar vide order dated August 11, 1989 dismissed the revision. A look at the order dated August 11, 1989 shows that the accused petitioners had knowledge of entire facts of the case and revision petition was drafted by their counsel after examining entire record. 6. there is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly the I.O. submitted final report No. 44 on June 18, 1984 and the informant Shyam Lal submitted protest petition. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar by a detailed order dated Sept. 10,1984 took cognizance of offence, the documents submitted by the Investigating Officer were not against the accused persons and no prejudice was caused to the accused if the copies of documents were not supplied to them. The accused petitioners regularly sought exemptions from their personal appearance and only their counsel appeared in the trial court. 7. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of this case and more particularly looking to the conduct of the accused in not seriously pursuing their right to receive copies of the documents after the directions issued by the learned trial court on June 23, 1992 to the public prosecutor to supply the copies of the documents and in view of the fact that no prejudice was caused to the accused by not receiving the copies as they had in know of the entire documents. I do not consider it proper to attract the provisions contained in Section 482 Cr.RC. It appears that the accused petitioners sought to take advantage of their own acts in protraction of the trial. 8. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed. However looking to the long pendency of the case, I direct the learned trial court to adjudicate upon it expeditiously within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Attempt shall be made to proceed with the trial of the case day to day. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) shall make arrangements to send back the record so as to reach before the Court of ACJM Sikar on or before April 22, 1998. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of ACJM Sikar on April 23.1998. *******