JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray for quashing of a criminal case pending against them ever since the year 1983. The prosecution in this case is for commission of offence under section 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g), 39(3)(a) and 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and which offences are punishable under section 81 of the said Act and in respect of which the authority to make a complaint has to be as per the provisions of section 35 of the said Act. No Court can take cognizance of any offence unless a complaint is made by the Chief Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Originally two separate complaints were filed. The petitioner No. 1 was proceeded against in Criminal Case No. 37 of 1981 and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 36 of 1981, both launched in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur, having territorial jurisdiction. The prosecution was launched, in both these cases, however upon the report of the Police Sub-Inspector, Murtizapur. The learned Magistrate who initially took cognizance of the offence in both the cases, under section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, subsequently held that the petitioners were being duly proceeded against by the P.S.I. The petitioners therefore filed Criminal Application No. 206/82 in this Court. The same was decided on 29-7-1982, holding that a Police Sub-Inspector was not a person competent and authorized to prosecute the petitioners for the above said offences. On that short ground this Court by its order quashed the proceedings in the said two Criminal Case Nos. 36/81 and 37/81.

2. Thereupon a fresh criminal case was field, against all these six petitioners, in the Court of the said Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur, but this time in the form of a complaint by the Range Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which the offences were committed. The petitioners as the accused made an application to the learned Magistrate claiming entitlement to a discharge. The application was allowed by an order dated 1-2-1983. The complainant Range Forest Officer moved the Sessions Judge, Akola, invoking his revisional jurisdiction in the Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 1983. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and then instead of directing the case to be reheard before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Murtizapur directed that it be heard by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the district of Akola. In view of this order dated 29-6-1984, the matter went to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. In that Court also, petitioners then made, similar application again claiming entitlement to an order of discharge. This application dated 6-7-1989 which was opposed by the respondent/complainant by his reply dated 5-8-1989 was heard on 5-9-1989 and by his order dated 20-12-1989 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application.

3. The contentions which were raised in the application made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate were that inspite of several requisitions sent by the said Court to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Murtizapur to send all the records and proceedings of the earlier criminal cases No. 36/81 and 37/81, had not been able to secure the said records and the petitioners were thus kept hanging fire all the time. It was the complainant Range Forest Officer's duty to ensure that the record and proceedings were found and brought before the Court. By reason of this inordinate delay and non-availability of the record and proceedings of the two earlier matters, the petitioners were experiencing extreme difficulty and hardship was caused to them in the matter of being required from one date of hearing to another, several times and it was, even at the time of the application made to the C