KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) ). BOTH- these appeals against acquittal arise as a result of the Trial court acquitting the accused. Placing reliance on the pronouncement of law in Raj Deo Sharma v State of Bihar, a common order is passed. ( 2 ) THE allegations against the accused-respondents related to charges under Section 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC in both the cases. In c. C. No. 535 of 1988 the occurrence was alleged to have taken place between 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1977 and the amount alleged to have been misappropriated was Rs. 13,020. 05/ -. In C. C. No 536 of 1988 the occurrence was alleged to have taken place between 1-7-1974 to 30-6-1975 and the amount alleged to have been misappropriated was Rs. 4,705. 09/ -. The Trial Court in both these cases held that the evidence of the auditor, main prosecution witness was examined-in-chief in part. The prosecution was not able to complete the Auditor's evidence in spite of granting sufficient time. The Trial Court further held that the charge against the accused persons was recorded on 12-1-1990. But till 23-1- 2001, the prosecution had not completed the evidence in spite of grant- ing 10 years time. Therefore, the Court closed the case on 23-1-2001 relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma's case, supra. The Court also held that the evidence of the Auditor was the most important piece of evidence. In these circumstances, the Trial Court acquitted the accused in both the C. C. Nos. 535 and 536 of 1988. There is also a delay in filing both these appeals. ( 3 ) WE wonder whether any useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter to the Trial Court with respect to occurrence that took place, after nearly 25 years. We would like to state the law on the subject as pronounced by the Supreme Court. The maximum sentence prescribed under the statute for an offence under Section 409 of the IPC is imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma's case, supra, held at paragraph 16 (iii) with respect to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years. The maximum sentence prescribed under the statute for an offence under Section 409 of the IPC is imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma's case, supra, held at paragraph 16 (iii) with respect to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years. Paragraph 16, clause (iii) reads as follows:"16 (III) If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case, unless for very exceptional reasons to be recorded and in the interest of justice the Court considers it necessary to grant further time to the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time-limit". ( 4 ) CLAUSES 4 and 5 at paragraph 16 are the riders where Clause 3 is not applicable. On a reading of Clause 5 it clearly indicates that the directions given by the Supreme Court will be in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in "common cause" a Registered Society through its Director v Union of India and others, as modified by the order in "common Cause" a Registered Society through its Director v Union of India and Others. ( 5 ) IN this case admittedly, there is no fault on the part of the accused in delaying the proceedings. Therefore, the directions of Raj Deo sharma's case, supra, will apply squarely to the facts of this case. ( 6 ) WE shall now deal with Raj Deo Sharma v State of Bihar A majority judgment of the Supreme Court while confirming the law laid down in the case of Raj Deo Sharma's case, supra, held that the Trial court would be permitted to grant an additional period of 1 year and the court may grant such extension, if the Court considered it necessary in the interest of the administration of criminal justice. . . ( 7 ) ULTIMATELY what the majority judgment of the Supreme Court pronounced was that if the prosecution fails to complete its case within 3 years from the date of recording the plea of the accused of the charge framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period, the Court shall proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case, unless for exceptional reasons to be recorded in the interest of justice and at best the Trial Court may grant one more year to the prosecution to complete its case. ( 8 ) THE Trial Courts are obliged to follow the law and guidelines laid down by both the cases referred to above. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the State. Leave declined. --- *** --- .