B. K. RATHI, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 293 of 1999, State v. Gobardhan under Section 409, I. P. C. pending in the Court of IVth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mirzapur. 2. The quashing of the proceedings have been requested on two grounds. The first ground is purely legal for which learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the case of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1998 (37) ACC 834: 1999 (1) JIC 131 (SC ). 3. It is contended that the Honble Supreme Court in this case has directed that in cases punishable with imprison ment for a period exceeding seven years the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of accused on the charges framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the wit nesses or not within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case. It is further contended that in the present case the charges were framed on 12-7-1994 and the plea of the accused was recorded on that date and large number of dates have fixed for evidence but the prosecution has not examined any witness as yet and therefore, the evidence of the prosecution should be closed. 4. I have considered the argument and has bonafide doubt in my mind as to whether the evidence could be closed in this case which is for offence under Section 409, I. P. C. which is punishable with im prisonment for life in view of the direc tions given in the above case. The perusal of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court shows that the above directions are in addition and without prejudice to the directions issued by the apex Court in the case of "common Cause" v. Union of India as modified later on. 5. The perusal of the direction given in the case of "common Cause" by the Honble Supreme Court shows that these directions docs not apply to the cases of misappropriation of public fund. 5. The perusal of the direction given in the case of "common Cause" by the Honble Supreme Court shows that these directions docs not apply to the cases of misappropriation of public fund. There fore, the decision of Raj Deo Sharma (supra) will also not apply to the offence under Section 409, I. P. C. as the direction given in this case is without prejudice to the directions given in the case of "com mon Cause1. If otherwise the view is taken it will prejudice the directions given in the case of "common Cause". 6. There is another reason for finding that the case of Raj Deo Sharma (supra) does not apply to offence punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Section 53 of Indian Penal Code provides of punish ments which reads as follows: Punishments: The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are: First -Death; Secondly-Imprisonment for life; Thirdly- (Deleted) Fourthly - Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely- (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly - Forfeiture of property; Sixthly - Fine. " 7. The perusal of the above Section shows that punishments have been categorized in six categories. The first and second are death and imprisonment for life. The fourth is regarding punishment of im prisonment. Therefore, where the Honble Supreme Court has mentioned regarding the punishment with imprisonment of seven years or more it has mentioned regarding the punishment provided in the fourth category and not regarding punishments of first and second category. Therefore, in case of an offender liable to punishment with death or imprisonment for life under first and second category of Section 53,i. P. C. the decision of Raj Deo Sharma (supra) will have no application. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the basis of the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Deo Sharma (supra ). 8. Now coming to the second ground which is factual. It is alleged that there was dispute with managing committee and the petitioner was appointed as ad hoc Head Master of the Institution by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. That the Management committee did not accepted the petitioner as Head Master and therefore, informed the bank not to accept the deposit made: by the petitioner. That, therefore, the amount realized by the petitioner as fee etc. That the Management committee did not accepted the petitioner as Head Master and therefore, informed the bank not to accept the deposit made: by the petitioner. That, therefore, the amount realized by the petitioner as fee etc. were not accepted by the bank and therefore, the petitioner deposited the same in the post office by opening a separate account. That the Managing Committee there after lodged an F. I. R. that the amount was missappropriated. That in fact there is absolutely no misap propriation and the entire amount was deposited by the petitioner. For this reason, nobody is coming forward to sup port the case of the prosecution. 9. The narration of the facts as alleged by the applicant, if are correct no prima facie offence under Section 409, I. P. C. is made out and the petitioner is facing trial since last about more than five years. 10. In the circumstances I direct the trial Court to decide the case very cx-peditiously on priority basis within six months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order before it. The trial Court may issue directions to the prosecution to produce the entire evidence on the date fixed with warning that no adjournment shall be granted. 11. The petition is accordingly dis posed of. Petition disposed of. .