Judgment :- The revision petition herein is the second accused in S.C.No.137 of 2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal and she filed an application before the trial Court under Section 227 Cr. P.C. seeking discharge. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioner had preferred this revision before this Court. 2. Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing this revision petition and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle. 3. The occurrence in this case relates to the year 2004 and the sessions case relates to the year 2005. This revision petition was presented by the petitioner before this Court and it came up in the list on 3.1.2006. It appears from the Court docket order sheet that the revision has not been admitted so far and on 18.1.2006, the learned Government Advocate took notice for the respondent and thereafter, the revision stood adjourned. It appears, though the revision petition was not admitted and no order of stay of sessions court proceedings has been passed, the trial Court has not proceeded with the trial. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the case was adjourned periodically for the only reason that the revision petition is pending before this Court. He would further submit that about seven months back, the fourth accused absented himself and a non-bailable warrant has been issued and about three months back, accused 1,10,11 and 16 also absented from appearing before the Court and non-bailable warrants have been issued and the warrants are still pending against those accused. 4. This Court feels that the trial had been pending simply before the trial Court for years together. Neither the investigating office nor the prosecutor took steps either to being this revision for disposal or pleaded before the trial Court to proceed with the trial. In fact, a Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed to appear in this case before the trial court. It appears, the idea of the Fast Track Court itself has been defeated. 5. Neither the investigating office nor the prosecutor took steps either to being this revision for disposal or pleaded before the trial Court to proceed with the trial. In fact, a Special Public Prosecutor has been appointed to appear in this case before the trial court. It appears, the idea of the Fast Track Court itself has been defeated. 5. This Court now makes it clear that all the Sessions Court should proceed with the Sessions trial and it should not be adjourned merely for the reason that some petition is pending before the High Court, unless the proceedings are specifically stayed by the order of the High Court. All the Sessions Judge are directed hereafter to follow this strictly. 6. This revision case is dismissed as withdrawn. The Investigating Officer is directed to execute the non-bailable warrants issued against the accused without any further delay and if the accused are secured, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis expeditiously.