Judgment Choudhary S.N.Mishra, J. 1. In this criminal writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner being Special Case No. 27/1990 for an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar, Patna. 2. The shortly stated the presecution case is that on 9.6.1975 a first information report was lodged by one Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chapra to the effect that one Surendra Singh and Birendra Singh both injured patients of a murder case of Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 4(6)/1975 were admitted in Sadar Hospital, Chapra by the petitioner Dr. Sideshwari Prasad on 4.6.1975. The said injured patients approached the petitioner, who was posted at the relevant time at Chapra as a Medical Officer for issuance of injury report. It is alleged that the petitioner accused refused to issue the injury report without paying alleged gratification of Rs. 190/-. The District Magistrate, Saran received information regarding the demand of bribe and accordingly he deputed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri K.P. Singh, Magistrate, Sri B.P. Singh, S. A Gajnafar,lnspector (Vigilance) Chapra and the officer-in-charge of Chapra Town Police Station to enquire into the matter. They all went to the hospital and waited outside the room. At about 9.00 P.M. injured Surendra Singh talked the petitioner inside the outdoor room. The Inspector of Anti Corruption has informed the Raiding Party that the injured patient had paid money to the doctor inside the room itself. The raiding party entered into room where doctor Prasad was sitting. The raiding party, after disclosing their identity, has expressed their desire to search the accused for the recovery of the bribed money. In course of a search, the Inspector, Anti Corruption informed the raiding party that the accused doctor has thrown the money after taking out from right side pants pocket under the chair. The complainant collected the currency notes and accordingly prepared a list which was signed by the witnesses as well as accused petitioner. The injured patient was also disclosed. that the said currency notes were paid to the accused at 5-7 minutes before the recovery which was kept by the accused in his right side pants pocket. The complainant collected the currency notes and accordingly prepared a list which was signed by the witnesses as well as accused petitioner. The injured patient was also disclosed. that the said currency notes were paid to the accused at 5-7 minutes before the recovery which was kept by the accused in his right side pants pocket. He has also seen the accused doctor throwing the currency notes from the right side of his pants pocket under his chair. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, a Jalalpur P.S. Case No. 4(6)/1975 was registered against the petitioner. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code including section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 9.1.1981. True copy of the first information report and the charge sheet are made annexure-1 and 2 respectively to this writ application. The case was ultimately transferred to the court of Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar at Patna. The petitioner on receipt of notice in the year 1991, has appeared before the Special Judge (Vigilance). 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, as stated has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of the aforesaid special case, mainly on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the instant case was instituted in the year 1975, but till date no positive step has been taken for conclusion of the trial though there is absolutely no laches on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the instant proceeding is fit to be quashed. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision in the case of R.K. Mandal and others vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1997(1) P.L.J.R. 103. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel, it is relevant to mention that the petitioner came to this court earlier challenging the order dated 3.9.1994 by which the prayer for discharge of the petitioner has been rejected including the quashing of the entire proceeding which was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 14445/1994. The said Cr. Misc. was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 6.10.1994. 4. The instant writ application was filed on 30.8.1996 praying for almost the same reliefs which has been rejected by this court earlier as stated above. Misc. No. 14445/1994. The said Cr. Misc. was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 6.10.1994. 4. The instant writ application was filed on 30.8.1996 praying for almost the same reliefs which has been rejected by this court earlier as stated above. This successive writ application was dismissed earlier on 22.4.1997 on the ground maintainability as the same and similar prayer of the petitioner was earlier rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Special Leave application on 28.7.1997 where the submission made before the Apex Court was the same and similar which has been raised in this writ application. The Supreme Court by its order dated 21.2.1997 remitted the case back to this court with a direction to decide the matter on merit with reference to the materials on record. Accordingly, this writ application was admitted on 6.3.1998 and further proceeding was stayed. Thereafter vide order dated 16.1.1998 the lower court records was called for. 5. In the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Bibhuti Prasad Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department has placed the entire order sheet right from 31.8.1993 till 7.2.1996 and submits that the content of the petitioner is not correct, inasmuch as, most of the dates, the petitioner remained absent, which resulted in delay of disposal of the proceeding. The submission of Mr. Pandey seems to be well founded. Mere perusal of the order sheet right from 1993 till 1996, it appears that on most of the dates, the petitioner remained absent. No doubt, on some dates, the court was also not available due to non-gazetted employees strike. 6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has relied upon a decision as referred to above and submits that till date no positive step has been taken on behalf of the prosecution for disposal of the case initiated against the petitioner in the year 1975 and in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, the proceeding is fit to be quashed. In opposition, however, Mr. In opposition, however, Mr. Pandey appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department has relied upon a decision in the case of Common Causes registered society through its Director vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1996 S.C. page 1619 and submits that the earlier decision of R.K. Mandal and others vs. The State of Bihar (supra) stands modified to the extent that, in such cases, no time limit can be fixed, the details of the offences under various Act has been mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the judgment. In such cases, however, the court can monitor the cases and give direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within the stipulated time fixed by this court. Accordingly, relying upon the aforesaid decision 1996 S.C. (supra), the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar at Patna is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order on priority basis without allowing unnecessary routine adjournments failing which the instant proceeding initiated against the petitioner shall automatically stand quashed. It goes without saying that the petitioner must cooperate with the day to day trial and will not ask for routine adjournments. 7. Let the lower court records alongwith this order be sent down to the Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar at Patna forthwith.