JUDGMENT - B.B. VAGYANI, J.:---Heard learned Advocate Shri R.N. Dhorde for the petitioners and Shri V.D. Sapkal, learned A.P.P., for the State. Rule, returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. The present petitioners are prosecuted for having committed the offences punishable under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The charge-sheet came to be filed on 15th February, 1993. The list of witnesses was filed on 24th of May, 1996. The plea of accused was recorded on 31st of May, 1996. There was no progress after recording of plea of the petitioners. No oral evidence was recorded by the Special Judge. 3. Relying on (Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar)1, 1999(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)1, the present petitioners filed application dated 7-7-1999, in the trial Court and sought a direction from the Court to close the prosecution evidence. The said application has been rejected by the Judge, Special Court, Ahmednagar, by order dated 7-7-1999. This rejection order is challenged in this criminal writ petition. 4. Learned Advocate Shri R.N. Dhorde has placed heavy reliance on Raj Deo Sharma's case. In my view, the ratio of the Raj Deo Sharma's case does not come to the rescue of the petitioners because exception is carved out for certain offences. The ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of (Abdul Raheman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak)2, 1992(1) S.C.C. 225 came up for consideration in Common Cause Case No. 1 where, the petitioner, a registered society, espousing-public causes, sought certain direction in a petition under Article 32, with respect to the cases pending in the Criminal Courts all over the country. Apex Court has given certain directions in para 4 of its decision at page 35, 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 519 , (Common Cause v. Union of India)3. Apex Court has given certain directions in para 4 of its decision at page 35, 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 519 , (Common Cause v. Union of India)3. The direction in para 4, which appears at page 37 of the report, makes it clear that directions (1) and (2) in para 4 were not applicable to the cases of offences involving: (a) corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating, whether under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or any other statute, (b) smuggling, foreign exchange violation and offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (c) Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Food Adulteration Act, dealing with environment or any other economic offences, (d) offences under the Arms Act, 1959, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987, (e) offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force, (f) offences against public tranquillity, (g) offences relating to public servants, (h) offences relating to coins and Government stamp, (i) offences relating to elections, (j) offences relating to giving false evidence and offences against public justice. (k) any other type of offences against the State, (l) offences under the taxing enactments and (m) offences of defamation as defined in section 499, Indian Penal Code.” 5. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the second Common Cause case, (Common Cause, a registered Society v. Union of India)4, 1997(1) Bom.C.R. 636 . The Apex Court thought it fit to add a few more categories of offences to those which are mentioned in the direction in para 4 of Common Cause Case No. 1. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the second Common Cause case, (Common Cause, a registered Society v. Union of India)4, 1997(1) Bom.C.R. 636 . The Apex Court thought it fit to add a few more categories of offences to those which are mentioned in the direction in para 4 of Common Cause Case No. 1. After category (m) appearing in direction in para 4, in Common Cause-1, the following categories have been added by virtue of para 3 in Common Case-II which appears at page 637: (n) matrimonial offences under Indian Penal Code including section 498-A or under any other law for the time being in force; (o) offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act including offences under section 138 thereof; (p) offences relating to criminal misappropriation of property of the complainant as well as offences relating to criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being in force; (q) offences under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code or any offence pertaining to rash an negligent acts which are made punishable under any other law for the time being in force; (r) offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience decency and morals as listed in Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code or such offences under any other law for the time being in force. 6. If regard is had to the ratio of Common Cause - 1 and 2, as above, it is abundantly clear that the present case falls in the exception or saving clause. 7. There is another hurdle in the way of the present petitioner. It is made clear in Raj Deo Sharma's case that if the inability for completing the prosecution within the specified time is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no Court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in any of the cases covered by Clauses (i) to (iii). 8. A reference with profit can also be made to Antulay's case, l992(1) S.C.C. 225. The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of five Judges has observed that the criminal proceedings must be concluded with reasonable despatch and no outer limit can be prescribed on conclusion of the proceedings. 9. In view of this position, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The impugned order is perfectly legal and correct. The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of five Judges has observed that the criminal proceedings must be concluded with reasonable despatch and no outer limit can be prescribed on conclusion of the proceedings. 9. In view of this position, I hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The impugned order is perfectly legal and correct. The writ petition is devoid of any merits. Under the circumstance, criminal writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. Criminal writ petition dismissed. -----