ORDER

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the concerned parties in the present proceedings. Having given our anxious consideration to their contentions, we deem it fit to clarify/modify our judgment dated 1st May 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986* as under.

I. The time limit mentioned regarding the pendency of criminal cases in paragraphs from 2(a) to 2(f) of our judgment shall not apply to cases wherein such pendency of the criminal proceedings is wholly or partly attributable to the dilatory tactics adopted by the concerned accused or on account of any other action of the accused which results in prolonging the trial. In other words it should be shown that the criminal proceedings have remained pending for the requisite period mentioned in the aforesaid clauses of paragraph 2 despite full cooperation by the concerned accused to get these proceedings disposed of and the delay in the disposal of these cases is not at all attributable to the concerned accused, not such delay is caused on account of such accused getting stay of criminal proceedings from higher courts. Accused concerned are not entitled to earn any discharged or acquittal as per paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (f