ORDER : By an order dated 07.11.2017 a coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed further proceedings in connection with S.T. No.22 of 2016. 2. The petitioners arc accused in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.48 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.853 of 2015. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 19.08.2016 by which their application seeking discharge in S.T. No.22 of 2016 was dismissed. 4. Mr. Md. Sajid Yunus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who arc made accused in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.48 of 2015 which was registered under section 12(1)(2)(3) of Jharkhand Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter) Act, 2005 were driver and khalasi respectively of the vehicle on which the animal skin/leather were seized. 5. In "Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation" (2018) 16 SCC 299 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions to all the Courts to proceed with the trial irrespective of any order of stay if not extended within six months or by a subsequent order. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was intended to be applied to all orders passed by all Courts including the High Courts and was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent orders and finally by an order dated 15.10.2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the following directions: “..We expect that a Magistrate all over the country will follow our order in letter and spirit. Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months, and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same." 6. I find that in more than 3 years the petitioners have not taken any step for hearing or this criminal revision petition though the trial in S.T. No.22 or 2016 was stayed. 7. In the order dated 19.08.2016 by which discharge petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh has held as under: "Perused the case record. 7. In the order dated 19.08.2016 by which discharge petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh has held as under: "Perused the case record. From perusal of the case record, it transpires that this case has been registered as Ramgarh P.S Case No. 48/15 dated 26.02.2015 against the accused persons under u/s.12(1) (2) (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Slaughter Prohibition Act, 2005 on the basis of self-statement recorded by informant. Anil Kumar, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarh P.S. As per production-cum seizure list dated 25.02.2015 it appears that the accused petitioners were apprehended alongwith 10 wheeler truck bearing registration no. JH-05AB-6211 in which 50 tons skin of bovine animals were recovered and as per FSL, Report dated 29.05.15 submitted by Asst. Director, State Forensic Laboratory, Jharkhand. Ranchi, the said skin pieces are of cow source of origin and the said skins cannot be obtained without slaughtering the animals. So the plea of the petitioners that the skin do not come within the purview of the Gazette notification dated 22.11.2005 of Jharkhand Bovine Animals Slaughter Prohibition Act, 2005 is not tenable and further from perusal of the material available on the record it also appears that a prima facie case is made out against the accused petitioners namely Md. Irshad Ansari and Md. Sameer u/s. 12(1) (2) (3) of the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Slaughter Prohibition Act, 2005. Further, from perusal of the case diary and material available on the record, it also transpires that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused petitioners so the prayer for discharge of the accused persons u/s. 227 of the Cr.P. C is not maintainable. Hence, the petition dated 26.04.16 flied on behalf of the accused petitioner to discharge the accused petitioner u/s. 227 of the Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. " 8. From the materials on record, I gather that sufficient evidences on complicity of the accused were collected during the investigation. In such view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1479 of 2016 is dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent through ‘FAX' to the Court concerned.