RAMESH MADHAV BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are accused in C. C. No. 131/1997 which is pending in the Court of VI Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The prosecution was launched against the accused petitioners under Section 29 (1) (a) r/w Section 3 (k) (vii) of Insecticides Act, 1968, for contravening the provisions of Insecticides Act. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The petitioners were made to appear before the Court and thereafter the trial concluded. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate found all the accused petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them except Accused No. 9. A-9 died during the pendency of the trial. A-1 to A-8 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. A-10 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00. A-11 and A-12 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence only A-10 to A-12 have filed Crl. A. No. 27/1993 on the file of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur. A-1 to A-8 did not prefer any appeal. Learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated 21-07-1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence and remanded back the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The accused petitioners were directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 05-09-1994. On remand, the case was made over to VI Addl. Munsif Magistrate and the same was numbered as C. C. No. 131/1997. The petitioners herein appeared in the Court through their special Vakalat holder before the learned Magistrate. At this stage, the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 258, Cr. P. C. in Crl. M. P. No. 887/1998 in C. C. No. 131/1997 before the learned Magistrate and prayed for discharge relying upon the ruling of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of "common Cause" A Regd. Society Thru. Its Director v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1619 : (1996 Cri LJ 2380) as the case was pending for trial before the Court for more than three and half years after remand. Society Thru. Its Director v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1619 : (1996 Cri LJ 2380) as the case was pending for trial before the Court for more than three and half years after remand. The said application was dismissed and therefore, the accused petitioners had filed this present Crl. R. C. ( 3 ) THE matter came up before the learned single Judge of this Court. It was argued before the learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge was not convinced with the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners who pleaded before the learned single Judge that as per judgment in Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) the accused petitioners are entitled to either discharge or acquittal. However, the learned single Judge of this Court held that Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) is not applicable in respect of offences punishable under the provisions of Insecticides Act in view of Para 4 (c) of the judgment of Common Cause case (supra) and therefore the learned single Judge held that the criminal case which is remanded back for trial, from what date the period of pendency of criminal trial should be calculated i. e. whether from the date on which the accused are directed to appear before the trial Court or, from the date on which the record is received by the trial Court for proceeding further, holding so, the learned single Judge thought that the matter be placed before the larger Bench for laying down the correct law. As per directions of Hon ble the Chief Justice the matter is placed before us. ( 4 ) LOOKING at the entire evidence, the questions that arise for consideration is, what date should be taken into account to hold that the case is pending for more than two years. Before the trial Court. In Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) their Lordships in Para 3 of the judgment held as under :"for the purpose of directions contained in Clauses (1) and (2) above, the period of pendency of criminal case shall be calculated from the date the accused are summoned to appear in the Court. Before the trial Court. In Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) their Lordships in Para 3 of the judgment held as under :"for the purpose of directions contained in Clauses (1) and (2) above, the period of pendency of criminal case shall be calculated from the date the accused are summoned to appear in the Court. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, it is evident that when the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and the accused were made to appear before the Court that would be the crucial date for the purpose of calculating as to from how many years the case in hand is pending for trial before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, we hold that the reference made by the learned Judge on this aspect is unnecessary. ( 6 ) THE second question before us is whether the accused petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra ). While delivering the judgment in Common Cause case (supra) their Lordships have enumerated guidelines in Para 4 of the judgment, excluding certain cases from the applicability of Common Cause case (supra ). ( 7 ) IT further appears that their Lordships have clarified in the above judgment i. e. Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) in Common Cause Case v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1539 : (1997 Cri LJ 195 ). ( 8 ) PARAGRAPH (III) of the judgment (1997 Cri LJ 195) (supra) reads as under :"iii. ( 7 ) IT further appears that their Lordships have clarified in the above judgment i. e. Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra) in Common Cause Case v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1539 : (1997 Cri LJ 195 ). ( 8 ) PARAGRAPH (III) of the judgment (1997 Cri LJ 195) (supra) reads as under :"iii. In paragraph 4 of our judgment in the list of offences to which directions contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply, the following additions shall be made : (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 Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time in force; (q) offences under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code or any offence pertaining to rash and 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. It is further directed that in criminal cases pertaining to offences mentioned under the above additional categories; (n) to (r) wherein accused are already discharged or acquitted pursuant to our judgment dated 1/05/1996 and they are liable to be proceeded against for such offences pursuant to the present order and are not entitled to be discharged or acquitted as aforesaid, the concerned Criminal Court shall suo motu or on application by the concerned aggrieved parties shall issue within three months of the receipt of this clarificatory order at their end, summons or warrants, as the case may be, to such discharged or acquitted accused and shall restore the criminal cases against them for being proceeded further in accordance with law. It is however made clear that in trials regarding other offences which are covered by the time limit specified in our earlier order dated 1/05/1996 wherein the concerned accused are already acquitted or discharged pursuant to the said order, such acquittal or discharged accused shall not be liable to be recalled for facing such trials pursuant to the present clarificatory order which qua such offences will be treated to be purely prospective and no such cases which are already close shall be reopened pursuant to the present order. " ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the above clarificatory order passed by their Lordships in Common Cause case (1997 Cri LJ 195) (supra) and also considering the Common Cause case (1996 Cri LJ 2380) (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners herein are entitled to acquittal on the ground that the case against them is pending for more than two years. Accordingly, we answer the reference and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate passed in Crl. M. P. No. 887/1998 in C. C. No. 131/1997 and we acquit the accused petitioners herein. The bail bonds executed by them stand cancelled. In the result, the Crl. R. C. is allowed. ( 10 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, we would like to add few more sentences the manner in which the office staff of the Guntur District Court is working and no effective supervision is made by the District Judge. Crl. A. No. 27/1993 was decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 21-07-1994, but the records of the case was not received by the trial Court till 04-03-1997. We are unable to appreciate this type of working. Therefore, we direct the learned District Judge, Guntur to hold an enquiry against the officials who have been lethargic in discharging their duties and take appropriate action. Petition allowed.