JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. The accused persons who succeeded greatly in procrastinating a criminal proceeding against them, later succeeded in getting the criminal proceedings quashed solely on the ground of procrastination of court proceedings in the criminal case concerned. State of Bihar has now challenged the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court as per which the aforesaid criminal proceedings have been quashed.

3. An FIR was registered in 1991 for the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, (for short the RPUP Act ). An inquiry was conducted under Section 8 of the said Act and on completion of the inquiry a complaint was filed in the court of a judicial magistrate of First Class on 13.1.1992. The magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued proceedings against four persons arrayed in the complaint including the respondents in this appeal. Thereafter, the case passed through many vicissitudes. On 5.1.1998, the respondent moved on application in the trial court praying that they may be discharged. The magistrate rejected the application and the said order of the magistrate was challenged before the Hi