Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for direction to expedite and conclude the trial of Case No. 2250 of 2000, Crime No. 108 of 2000, P.S. Mawai, District Faizabad, under Section 3/25 Arms Act (State v. Ameer Haider), pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Faizabad, within two months.

FACTS:

2. It appears that a country-made Pistol and one Cartridge of 315 Bore was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Since occurrence had taken place during night hours, no public witness was available. Case was registered under Section 3/25 Arms Act (‘Act’ in short). After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 19.10.2000 and on the same day cognizance was taken.

3. It was urged that even after 12 years, neither any witness has been examined nor trial concluded, as such, continuance of proceedings amount to abuse of the process of the Court and same are liable to be quashed.

4. A report was called from the Court concerned. Court below in its report dated 27.8.2012 stated that charge was framed on 5.6.2004. Since case was transferred before different Courts, no evidence could be recorded, case reached his Court on 25.1.2012. He was holding additional charge of Nodal Officer of Computers which also caused delay.

5. Copy of order-sheet has been filed with the petition which shows that although charge-sheet was submitted and cognisance was taken on 19.10.2000 but charge could be framed on 5.6.2004. This Court took four years to frame the charge. Then for 8 years, the case continued to be posted for prosecution evidence but not one witness could be examined. What is more strange is that dates were fixed without there being any reason or motion therefor.

6. Some orders of different dates are being quoted hereinbelow:

“25-10-2004% is’k gqvk vfHk;qDr gkftjA vkns’k% i=koyh lk{; gsrq fnukad 29-1-2005 dks is’k gksA

29-1-2005% vfHk;qDr dh gk0 ekQh LohÑrA vkns’k% okLrs lk{; gsrq fnukad 28-4-2005 dks is’k gksA

And similarly ordersheet continued on 14.2.2006.

14-2-2006% is’k gqvkA vfHk0 mifLFkrA vkns’k% fnukad 20-3-2006 dks lk{; gsrq is’k gksA xokgku rycA

17-8-2007% iqdkj ij vfHk;qDr mi0A xokg vuq0A vkns’k% fnukad 3-10-2007 dks okLrs lk{; is’k gksA xokgku ryc gksaA

16-5-2008% iqdkjk x;kA eqyfte dh gk0 ekQhA lk{kh vuq0A vkns’k% fnukad 11-7-2008 dks okLrs lk{; is’k gksA lk{kh ryc gksaA

4-5-2009% okn iqdkjk x;kA vfHk;qDr vuqifLFkr gSA vkns’k% vfHk;qDr fnukad 8-6-2009 dks tfj, NBW ryc gksaA”

7. It is also apparent from the order-sheet that not one adjournment was granted on the request of prosecution. Court granted adjournment of its own. There is no mention that prosecution moved application for adjournment. There is no order of issuing bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses and no order imposing the cost for non-presence of prosecution witnesses has been passed by the Court. Nearly, 83 dates have been fixed in the case.

8. Although copies of the prosecution papers were given to the accused on 8.6.2002 but charge was framed after two years which could have been done on the same day.

9. Accused has appeared nearly on 25 dates. Once for his non-appearance, non-bailable warrant was issued which was later on recalled. Not once warrant has been issued against any prosecution witness nor cost has been imposed or paid to the accused, although all-through except on one date, the accused or his counsel had appeared.

10. Initially, charge-sheet was filed before A.C.J.M.-IV on 27.7.2002, case was transferred to the Court of First Civil Judge(J.D.). It appears that case was again sent to the Court of A.C.J.M.-IV on 19.12.2003. On 20th August, 2006, case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I. On 16.4.2008, case was transferred to the Court of A.C.J.M.-I. On 16.1.2009, case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III. On 10.12.2010, case was transferred to the Court of A.C.J.M.-II. On 20.4.2011, case was transferred to the Court of Judicial