1. The Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. against two orders of the even date i.e. 03.03.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Jodhpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 533/2014 (Old Case No. 68/2011) registered for offence under Section 3/25 & 27 of the Arms Act, vide which, both the applications filed by the prosecution under Sections 91, 173(8) read with Section 242 of the Cr. P.C. and under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. were allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.1998, one Lalit Bora filed a complaint at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur against the petitioner stating that in the intervening night of 01.10.1998 and 02.10.1998, the petitioner hunted two black bucks at village Kankani by using two revolver i.e. (i) Revolver S. & W. .32 Bore, Number 87011 made in U.S.A. and (ii) .22 Bore Rifle No.2118, for which, he did not have a valid arms license on the date of the alleged incident. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the petitioner for allegedly committing offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. Charge-sheet was filed on 10.10.2000 and the charges were framed on 27.01.2001. The petitioner is also arraigned as an accused in Criminal Case No.66/2011 (Old Case No.352/2000), which was registered as a complaint case by the Forest Department on 17.06.2000 for the offences under Sections 2(16), 9/51, 9/52 of the Wild Life Protection Act. In the said case, the learned court below took cognizance against the petitioner and five other co-accused for offences under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charges were also framed against the petitioner for the said offences in that case. However, the petitioner already stands discharged for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the trial of the case for remaining offences is still pending and is at the stage of evidence.

3. An application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. was moved by the prosecution on 14.08.2006 and another application under Section 91, 173(8) read with Section 242 of the Cr. P.C. was filed on 30.08.2006. Reply to these applications were filed by the petitioner on 05.09.2006 and 18.09.2006 respectively. Before the said applications could be decided, the record of the trial court was called by the High Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.858/2006. Thereafter, the record was received back on 25.05.2013. On receipt of the said record, the evidence of the prosecution commenced once again. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence of the prosecution was closed by an order dated 15.01.2014. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed on 08.12.2014 and the matter was fixed for arguments. The final arguments were heard on 09.02.2015, which continued up till 10.02.2015. The learned Magistrate fixed 25.02.2015 for pronouncement of the judgment in the matter. Meanwhile, before the judgment could be pronounced, an application for hearing the above mentioned two applications dated 14.08.2006 & 30.08.2006 was moved on 20.02.2015 by the prosecution and on the date fixed for pronouncement of the judgment, the learned Magistrate is stated to have informed the petitioner’s counsel that four applications moved by the prosecution in the year 2006 are still pending and the same have to be decided before the judgment could be pronounced in the matter. Reply to all the applications were filed in the year 2006 itself and thereafter, the prosecution never brought up the applications. After 9 years, on 03.03.2015, the trial court allowed two out of the four applications: (i) under Sections 91 & 173(8) read with Section 242 of the Cr. P.C. and (ii) under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C., thereby granting another opportunity to the prosecution to submit acknowledgment receipts and documents pertaining to sending/desp