Judgment :- Arali Nagaraj, J. Despite receipt of notice of this appeal, the respondents No.1 to 4, who were respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Trail Court, have remained absent. 2. Heard Sri. A.V. Ramakrishna, the Learned High Court Government Pleader, and perused the impugned order. 3. This appeal is by the complainant-State aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2008 passed in CC No.780/2007 by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trail Court’ for short), acquitting all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 (respondents herein) of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under: All the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were chargesheeted by the police of Nanjangud PS for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was framed against all the accused therein for the said offences on 24.6.2008. The said case stood posted to 15.1.2009 for recording further evidence for the prosecution and summons and NBWS were issued to the charge witnesses. 5. On 15.12.2008, the learned JMFC advanced the case suo-motu from 15.1.2009 and by his impugned order closed the case and thereby acquitted all the accused of the said offences despite the Learned APP opposing the disposal of the case without recording the evidence for the prosecution. The impugned order reads as under: “Case is suo-motu advanced to 15.12.2008. Considering the docket pressure on the Courts, on the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the District Court, Mysore by its letter No.11288/2008 dtd:2.12.2008 has directed this Court to dispose off all the criminal cases involving petty offences and compoundable offences by the end of the 31st Dec. 2008 following the ratio laid down in the AIR 1996 SC 1619 and ILR 2003 Karnataka 3958. Further on 10.12.2008 during review meeting held in District Court regarding work done in Lok Adalaths and also literacy programs conducted for the year, the Hon’ble Dist., Judge gave very strict oral direction that irrespective of the duration of the pendency whatever cases involving compoundable offences and petty offences pending as on 13.11.2008 must all be disposed off without fail before 31.12.2008 regardless of the procedural aspects and that no case of that category should be left un disposed. Learned APP is present and opposed disposal of the case stating that the interest of justice would suffer. The charge sheet has been failed for the offence under Sec. 341, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC. The offences are compoundable in nature. In view of the directions mentioned above the proceedings are closed. The accused No. 1 to 4 are acquitted of the said offence and their bail bonds are cancelled. Case property stick and stone shall be destroyed in accordance with law after appeal period. Intimate the accused or their Counsel of this order.” 6. On careful reading of the above order, it could be seen that the Learned Magistrate closed the said case and acquitted all the accused of all the said offences on the ground that the offences are all compoundable and the High Court directed that all the criminal cases involving petty and compoundable offences should be disposed of by the end of 31st December, 2008 and also that the District Judge had given strict oral direction to the Learned Magistrate that irrespective of duration of the pendency of the cases involving compoundable and petty offences pending as on 13.11.2008 must be disposed of without fail before 31.12.2008. 7. It is pertinent to note that no provision in Cr.PC. authorizes the District Judge to issue such oral or written directions and no provision in Cr.PC. empowers the Magistrate to dispose of the criminal cases involving compoundable offences without recording any evidence and that too in the absence of the complainant and also the accused by suo-motu advancing the case from the date fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is pertinent to note that the said case came to be closed despite the objections by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 8. Further, as could be seen from the impugned Order of acquittal, the Learned Magistrate has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 1619 , and also the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Vaddeyerra Venkataramana @ Raju and Ors ILR 2003 Kar 3958. The offences alleged against the accused in the said case are punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 all read with Section 34 IPC of which the offences under Sections 323 and 341 are bailable and punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and one month respectively. However, the offence under Section 324 IPC is non-bailable and punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of three years or with fine or with both. Thus, it is clear that none of these offences is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of more than three years with or without fine. In respect of cases involving such offences, the directions 1(a), 2(b) and 2(f) issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause’s case are relevant for the purpose of their disposal. The said direction read as under: 1(a) Where the offences under IPC or any other law for the time being in force for which the accused are charged before any Criminal Court are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years with or without fail and if trails for such offences are pending for one year or more and the concerned accused have not been released on bail but are in jail for a period of six months or more, the concerned Criminal Court shall release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be found necessary, in the light of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2(b) Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts for more than two years under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are compoundable with permission of the Court and if in such cases trails have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall, after hearing the public prosecutor and other parties represented before it or their advocates, discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases. 2(f) Where the cases pending in the Criminal Courts under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment up to three years, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trails have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.” 9. The offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 all read with Section 34 IPC alleged against the accused are all compoundable and are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, with or without fine. It is pertinent to note that charge sheet in the said CC No. 780/2007 was submitted by the police on 9.6.2007 and all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 therein appeared before the Trail Court for the first time on 02.08.2008 and on that date, all the accused were granted bail. Further, the trail of the case was to commence within two years of its pendency i.e. on 15.01.2009 as the charge sheet witnesses were summoned to appear on that date. 10. Thus it is clear that, though all the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC are compoundable, the offence under Section 324 IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years with or without fine, all the accused were on bail, the trail of the case was to commence within 2 years of its pendency, summonses and warrants were ordered to be issued to charge sheet witnesses and the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the closing of the case and therefore, under these circumstances, none of the directions, particularly the directions 1(a), 2(b) and 2(f) issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in common cause’s case, could be applied to the said case. Besides this, the decision of this Court in ILR 2003 KAR. 3958 also could not be applied to the said case inasmuch as, the question of Trail of the accused in absentia was not involved in the instant case. Therefore, I have no alternative but to hold that the impugned order of the Trail Court cannot be sustained in law. 11. 3958 also could not be applied to the said case inasmuch as, the question of Trail of the accused in absentia was not involved in the instant case. Therefore, I have no alternative but to hold that the impugned order of the Trail Court cannot be sustained in law. 11. Further, as could be seen from the impugned order of acquittal, it is crystal clear that the Trail Court passed the same in its anxiety of complying with the directions of High Court and very strict oral directions issued by the Learned District Judge during review meeting that irrespective of the duration of the pendency, and regardless of the procedural aspect, the cases involving compoundable offences and petty offences pending as on 13.11.2008 should be disposed of before 31.12.2008 without fail. 12. Disposal of pending criminal cases in this manner, in total disregard to the procedure established by law, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice and loss of confidence by the victims of crimes in the Law Courts. Courts are required, under law, to ‘decide’ the cases in accordance with the procedure established by law but they are not required to ‘dispose of’ them in such a hasty manner under the guise of any such direction as in the instant case. Therefore, the practice of issuing such directions without any authority and thereby bringing pressure on the Presiding Officers of subordinate Criminal Courts to dispose of the pending cases within a stipulated period irrespective of the duration of their pendency and regardless of the procedure established by law, shall have to be deprecated. For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2008 in CC No.780/2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud acquitting all the accused therein is hereby set aside. The Trail Court is hereby directed to restore CC No. 780/2007 to its original file, secure the presence of the accused therein and record the evidence on behalf of the prosecution and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Registrar General shall send a copy of this judgment to all the principal District Judges.