Judgment : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the respondent is absent. 2. In a pending Summary Case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No.5952 of 2010, at the instance of the Complainant, the trial Court made an order below Exh.66 on 27th March, 2012 accepting the submissions of the accused that the cheque in question was required to be examined by the Forensic Laboratory to find out the age of ink on the cheque etc. As a sequel to the said finding, the trial Court directed the accused to take hamdast and reach the same on the same day to the Forensic Laboratory at Nagpur. Needless to say that the trial Court did not first ascertain whether the expert opinion could be given by the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory or Hyderabad Laboratory and thus, putting cart before the horse, the said order came to be made. Obviously, the accused had to return back to the Magistrate with a letter from the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory saying that the said job is not done in Nagpur, but it has to done in Hyderabad. The applicant/accused then filed a pursis saying that now a fresh address from Hyderabad was obtained by him and he should be given hamdast in the name of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. On 9.4.2012, interestingly, the trial Court passed an order that it would not accept the pursis, but an application was required. In the first place, the pursis was filed in order to attract the attention of the Court to act on the letter issued by the Nagpur Forensic Laboratory. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in filing the pursis. In fact, it was a mistake of the trial Court not to ascertain the correct place. 3. Be that as it may, the accused/applicant then filed an application, as desired by the Court. When the application was filed, the trial Court rejected the same on the ground that it would delay the proceedings of the trial and the proceedings were old one. Hence, this application. 4. A glimpse of the above facts clearly shows that the trial Court has merely indulged in whiling away and nothing more and in the process, a period of about one year has passed since this Court granted stay upon filing of this application. Hence, this application. 4. A glimpse of the above facts clearly shows that the trial Court has merely indulged in whiling away and nothing more and in the process, a period of about one year has passed since this Court granted stay upon filing of this application. If, according to the trial Court, the pursis was wrongly filed, it could have recovered the Court fee payable on the application and proceeded with the pursis. However, it went on rejecting the pursis. When the accused, as desired by the Court, filed an application, the same was rejected on the ground that the matter is old one and the trial would be delayed. The stand is diagonally opposite in the light of the first order made. Thus, the trial Court, by the last order, made the first order meaningless. That is never the procedure to be followed by the Courts of law. Application of mind, patience, consistency and time management are the hall-mark of the Judiciary. Such an attitude to toss the Court proceedings must be deprecated. In view of the above, I make the following order. ORDER Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the Criminal Application. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter and send the cheque in question to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad by asking the accused to pay the necessary fees and to take hamdast in a sealed cover. The trial Court thereafter shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly.