IMPORTANT POINT
It is not open to a court to prescribe the time limit for disposal of a case and direct that after termination of that period if the case does not get over, the accused should be acquitted or discharged.

JUDGMENT

(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/12/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow. The High Court dismissed Criminal Misc. Case No.4227 of 2010 filed by the appellant praying that Criminal Complaint Case No.13 of 2008 be quashed.

3. Respondent 1 is the complainant (‘complainant’, for clarity). He filed a complaint in the court of ACJM, Faizabad against the appellant. According to the complainant, the temple of Lord Venkatesh situated in Ayodhya town is managed by a Trust. The appellant is the adopted son of Smt. Hulasmani Devi, the Sarwarkar and President of Vaikunth Mandap Sri Venkatesh Mandir Trust Committee. In short, the case of the complainant, as disclosed in Complaint dated 09/09/1985, is that on 31/08/1973 considering religious nature of the appellant, the appellant was entrusted with several silver and gold articles, jewellery and other articles belonging to the temple so that he may propagate the sect. In December, 1973, the appellant requested that he may be given certain more articles. Accordingly, more articles were given to him. The receipt of first set of articles was given by him but he did not give receipt of second set of articles. The appellant never returned the articles. He misappropriated them and thus committed criminal breach of trust.

4. Certain facts, which can be gathered from the various orders which are on record and from the affidavit of Mr. R.K. Chaturvedi, S.S.P. Faizabad need to be stated. As we have already noted, the complaint was filed on 09/09/1985. On 17/10/1985, the statement of the complainant was recorded. On 25/11/1985, the statement of witness Bashisht Pandey was recorded. On 17/12/1985, the statement of Rakesh Kumar Mishra was recorded. Both these witnesses confirmed the allegations made by the complainant. On 07/03/1986, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the case was fixed for hearing on 18/06/1988. On 18/06/1988, the complainant took time for producing evidence under Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“the code”, for short). Learned Magistrate posted the matter for hearing on 25/08/1988. But on 25/08/1988, the complainant and his advocate were absent. The appellant’s advocate presented an application for exemption which was accepted. Application preferred by the appellant under Section 245(1) of the Code was fixed for hearing on 26/08/1988. On 26/08/1988, learned Magistrate discharged the appellant under Section 245 (1) of the Code on the ground that the complainant was absent on 25/08/1988, which was the date fixed for production of evidence.

5. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No.91 of 1988 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad challenging the said order of discharge. Learned Sessions Judge observed that on 07/03/1986, learned Magistrate had summoned the appellant so as to inquire into the charge under Section 406 of the IPC but the appellant did not appear. He finally appeared on 18/06/1988 i.e. after about two and half years. This observation of the Sessions Court indicates that it is the appellant who kept himself away from the court. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that on 27/05/1988, the appellant was released on bail and the case was adjourned to 18/06/1988. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 25/08/1988, the complainant as well as the appellant were absent. The appellant’s advocate gave an application for exemption and also an application under Section 245(2) of the Code for discharge. The Magistrate fixed the hearing on 26/08/1988. On 26/08/1988 the appellant was absent. His advocate field an application for exemption. The complainant was present. He filed two applications. In one application, he sought opportunity to produce evidence under Section 244 of the Code and in the other application, he requested learned Magistrate to take further action only after re