JUDGMENT

B.D. Gupta, J. - This petition in revision discloses a very sorry state of affairs and, in the circumstances of the case, the only order which appears to me just and appropriate is to quash the proceedings against the applicant.

2. It appears that, in consequence of certain discrepancies appearing in the statement made by the applicant in the course of a criminal trial, Judicial Officer, Fatehgash, Sri R. K. Saksena, directed the filing of a complaint against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 193/211, I. P. C. The trial of the applicant appears to have been taken up by the Judicial Officer, Sadar and, on the 16th of December, 1966, on which date the applicant appeared in that court, the hearing was adjourned to the 23rd of December, 1966. On the 23rd of December, the applicant was present but the case was adjourned to the 3rd of January, 1967, on the ground that prosecution witnesses were not present. On the 3rd of January, 1967, the applicant appears to have been absent at the time the case was called out whereupon the court ordered issue of non-bailable warrants against the applicant and fixed the 12th 'of January, 1967. The record reveals that a little later, the same day, the applicant made an application representing that he had been present in court from 10 a.m. but as he was under an attack of dysentery he was absent at the time the case, was called out and when he came back he learnt that warrants had been issued. The prayer in the application was that the order directing issue of warrants be cancelled. The applicant was, however, taken into custody and was directed to furnish fresh bonds and sureties.

3. On the 12th of January, 1967, the applicant was present but the case was adjourned to the 17th of January, on which date the evidence of a witness was recorded but was not completed and the 21st of January, 1967, was fixed. The case was again adjourned on the 21st of January and the 30th of January, 1967, was fixed. The applicant was present on the 30th of January but the case was again adjourned to the 8th of February, 1967. On the 8th of February, again, the applicant was present but the case was adjourned because the Assistant Public Prosecutor appears to have desired an adjournment, and the 24th of February, 1967, was fixed. On the 24th of February again the case was adjourned and the 13th of 'March, 1967, was fixed. On the 13th of March, 1967, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) passed an order transferring the case to the court of a Special 'Magistrate for disposal and directed the applicant to appear in that court on the 20th of March, 1967. The 20th of March, 1967 appears to have been a date on which the special Magistrate does not appear to have been present to hold his sitting with the result that the case -was again adjourned to the 31st of March, 1967, on which date the Special Magistrate passed an order stating that he was not competent to try the case which could be tried only by a I class Magistrate and directed the applicant to appear before the (A.D.M., J.) on the 6th of April, 1967.

4. The Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) does not appear to have passed any order on the 6th of April, 1967, but on the 12th of April, 1967, he paned an order transferring the case to the court of J. O. Chhibramau for disposal. The applicant does not appear to have been informed of the aforesaid date. He, however, appeared in court on the 8th of May, 1967, which was a date fixed for recording the prosecution evidence, but the case was again' adjourned as no prosecution witness appears to have been present, and the 18th of May, 1967, was fixed as the next date. On the 18th of May, 1967, again, no prosecution witness was present, though the applicant was, and the hearing was again adjourned to the 27th of May, 1967.

5. On the 27th of May, 1967, also no prosecution witness was present. Two applications appear to have been made before the learned Magistrate on the 27th of May, 1