The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial of summons cases by Magistrates would be considered to have commenced when the accused appeared before the Magistrate and were asked whether they plead guilty or have any defense to make.

1. - This matter has been heard and this is being decided finally at the admission stage itself. The short point which is relevant for deciding the instant revision petition is as to whether the learned ACJM Bandikui District Dausa was justified in passing the impugned-order dated 16.10.1996 whereby, the petitioner's complaint against the accused-respondents in respect of offences under Sections 170, 173 (Ka), 194 and 203 of the Municipality Act was dismissed applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Common Cause a Registered Society through its Director v. UOI and Ors. reported in 1996 Cr. L.J. page 430 on the ground that since the proceedings pending between the parties as regards the aforesaid offences to which the procedure of summons case was applicable as the same had been pending trial for more than 2 years after taking cognizance of the same by the trial Court, the prosecution has taken no steps to proceed with the trial for the reasons that out of two accused namely Kamla Prasad and Ram Swaroop, Kamla Prasad had not appeared for more than 2 years and hence the trial could not proceed in the matter, the complaint was dismissed accordingly by the trial Court vide its impugned order, dated 16.10.1996 as referred to above.

2. Prima-facie, I am of the view that the trial Court was neither competent nor justified in having dropped the proceedings against the above named accused for the reasons as stated in the impugned-order since, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration that the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Common Cause A Registered Society (supra) stood clarified by a later decision of the Apex Court between the parties reported in AIR 1997 (SC) 1539 wherein, the Apex Court has specifically observed that:

In cases of trials of summons cases by Magistrates the trials would be considered to have commenced when the accused who appear or are brought before the Magistrate are asked under Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make.

3. In view of the above stated clarificatory order of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed a obvious fallacy in not taking note of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court.

4. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned-order dated 16.10.1996 passed by the learned ACJM Bandikui District Dausa in Cr. Case No. 21/94 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant for offences under Sections 203 and 194 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959, is quashed and set-aside.

5. As a result, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter afresh in accordance with law by issuing a process to procure the presence of both the accused on a date which may be fixed by the concerned trial Court.

6. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.Revision Petition allowed.

*******