( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 against the order of the I Additional District Munsif, cuddapah, dated 4-11-1996 passed on his file in Crl. M. P. No. 1153 of 1996 in c. C. No. 164 of 1996. The Court below has rejected the said Crl. M. P. No. 1153/96 filed by the petitioners. It is to be noted at this stage itself that the petitioners were chargesheeted for the offences under sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition act, 1961 and under Section 498 (A) of I. P. C. The petitioners filed the said Cr. M. P. for discharging and acquitting them of the alleged offences in view of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in a decision in common Cause A Registered Society, v. Union of India (1) 1996 Crl. LJ 2380, but by the impugned order the Court below has rejected that Crl. M. P. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this present criminal revision case.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court (1 supra) and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme court dated 28-11-1996 in Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India (2) wp (C) No. 1128 of 1986, SC, Dt. 28-11-1996 on the basis of which the Honourable Supreme court has issued a Circular dated 23-12-1996 in Roc. No. 976/96/op Cell-E-II.

( 3 ) I have given very anxious consideration to the case. It is not in dispute in this case that on the basis of the complaint filed by Sahira Banu, the wife of the accused no. 1, alleging that A1 and his parents A2 and A3 were harassing her and demanding her to bring more dowry, police have registered the case in Crime No. 33/91 and later filed a chargesheet on 21-8-91 and the court below took cognizance of the offence on 5-9-91 and thereafter the case was posted on 27-9-91 for appearance of the accused petitioners. Meanwhile petitioners preferred a criminal petition before this Court for quashing the proceedings, in Crl. P. No. 734/ 93 and there was an interim order granted by the High Court by staying the proceedings on 10-3-1993 and later the said interim order of stay was vacated on 27-4-1994. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed Criminal Petition no. 325/95 for not discharging them, In mat case also the Honourable High Court granted stay on 13-6-95 and the same was subsequently vacated on 25-7-1995. These facts are not disputed in the case. But the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a case is pending for the last 5 years and the trial has not commenced and as per the guidelines issued by the honourable Supreme Court in (1 supra) particularly under Para (f) of the directions the petitioners are entitled to be discharged of the offences under Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which are punishable with an imprisonment for not more than two years. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below has erred in holding that the delay in the disposal of the case was due to non- cooperation of the accused persons. He further submitted that in fact the delay in the disposal of the case cannot be attributable to the accused. The petitioners no doubt obtained stay in Crl. M. P. No. 734//93 on 10-3-93 but the same was vacated on 27-4-94. Even the stay granted in favour of the petitioners in crl. P. No. 325 of 1995 on 13-6-95 was vacated on 25-7-95. Thus, the total delay on account of the petitioners obtaining stay was not more man one year and three months in all and in fact the petitioners were examined under section 239 of Cr. P. C. on 3-1-92 and charge was also framed in the month of January, 1992 and absolutely there was no explanation on the part of the prosecution for the delay in the disposal of the case. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be discharged and acquitted of the offences. I am afraid, this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for m