JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition, however, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending before the learned trial court inter-alia on the ground of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1619 . 3. This petition was filed way back on 2.6.98, and the record of the learned trial court has been requisitioned and the same is lying here. 4. I have perused the record and find that, though challan has been filed on 16.4.1992, but then the charge was framed on 16.7.94, during which period, many adjournments were sought on behalf of the accused persons, for advancing arguments on the question of framing charge. Thereafter the case is going on for prosecution evidence. 5. A perusal of the order sheets show that initially, the case proceeded at reasonable good speed, and about seven witnesses were examined. However, it also transpires that on certain occasions, despite the witnesses being present in the Court, the accused persons desired to defer the recording of statement of the witnesses, likewise, on some occasions, despite the examination-in-chief of some witness having been recorded, the cross-examination was sought to be deferred. 6. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, this was so requested in view of the pendency of the cross case, and since the statement of that witness had not been recorded in cross case or so on. 7. Thus, it is clear that the statements of witnesses were deferred at the instance of the accused, only as a part of strategy of conduct of the litigation, as there were cross cases pending. Be that as it may. 8. The fact remains that, since 1997 the evidence is not being recorded, inasmuch as, statement of Madho Singh was recorded on 18.12.1996, and he was cross-examined by the defence on 2.6.97. Thereafter the Presiding Officer had been transferred and then the summons of remaining two witnesses No. 10 and 12, were being sent time and again, but they are not being served. Thereafter the Presiding Officer had been transferred and then the summons of remaining two witnesses No. 10 and 12, were being sent time and again, but they are not being served. Ultimately, the witness No. 12 was dropped and even the learned trial court vide order dated 21.2.1998 recorded that summon of witness No. 10 has been received unserved, which may be issued afresh, and that this is the last opportunity being given in the interest of justice, and further directed that in the event of witness not turning up on the next date, the statement of the accused persons will be recorded. It is notwithstanding this, that the witness was not present on the next date, and therefore, on 30th March, 1998, the service of the witness was closed, and the case was posted for recording statement of accused persons on 21.4.98. It is, at this stage, that on this date 21.4.98, an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 for reopening the summoning of the witness, which application was accepted and the witness was ordered to be summoned again, however, the service could not be effected. 9. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this witness No. 10 is I.O., who is not appearing in all connected cross cases between the parties, which are listed before me today. 10. In these circumstances, on being asked, the learned Public Prosecutor states that the witness No. 10 may be dropped, and the learned trial court may be directed to record the statement of the accused persons, and thereafter to complete the trial expeditiously. 11. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause case, reported in AIR 1996 SC, 1619, there has been another judgment in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3524 , wherein the earlier judgment in Raj Deo Sharma's case and Common Cause Case, were clarified, and it was inter-alia held that absence of the Presiding Officer in the trial court, either on account of physical disability or due to the delay in taking over the charge of the Court, is a valid cause, as such, this period can be excluded by the court from the period prescribed by the Supreme Court for completing the prosecution. Likewise, the expiry of the tenure of the Public Prosecutor etc. Likewise, the expiry of the tenure of the Public Prosecutor etc. has also been held to be excludable. However, taking into account the principles, propounded therein, the idea behind the directions being, as observed in para 4 of the judgment, "to speed up the trial in criminal cases to prevent the prosecution from becoming a prosecution of the person arrayed in a criminal trial. No trial can be allowed to prolong indefinitely due to the lethargy of the prosecuting agency or the State machinery and that is the reason deter in prescribing the time frame within which prosecution evidence must be closed." 12. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to direct the learned trial court to close the prosecution evidence and recorded the statement of accused under Section 313, and thereafter complete the trial most expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the complainant, so also the learned Public Prosecutor, assure that they will extend all cooperation to the learned trial court in complying with this direction as is being given by this Court. 13. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 30th August, 2001, which is said to be the date already fixed in the learned trial court. Record of the learned trial court be returned forthwith.The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.Petition disposed of. *******