The right to speedy trial includes the stage of investigation, and the court may quash criminal proceedings if there is unreasonable delay causing prejudice to the accused.

( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is filed on 28-12-2001 praying to quash the F. I. R. in No. 1/94 registered against petitioner by the Lokayukta Police, Mangalore, and all further proceedings purusant thereto, in the interest of justice.

( 3 ) A few material undisputed facts are that :petitioner joined the Government service in Karnataka Government, as an Excise Sub-Inspector, in the year 1969. When he was working as such, in the year 1994, at Bantwal in Mangalaore, South Canara District, the said Crime No. 1/94 was booked against him for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short ) on the complaint of one P. Harishchandra, Police Inspector, B. I. O. (Bureau of Investigation), Karnataka Lokayuktha, Mangalore. The complaint against petitioner accused was to the effect that during the period between 26-11-1969 and 5-2-1994 he had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, to the tune of Rs. 3,70,000/- and was thereby guilty of the said offence under the Act. On registration of the said crime, the petitoner was placed under suspension for some time and then he was reinstated in service by revoking his suspension. Thereafter, he was promoted in service as Excise Inspector and retired as such on 31-1-2000. Since the respondent Invesigating Police had failed to complete its investigation and file the charge-sheet till the date of his retirement, the present petition is filed by him praying to quash the registration of the said crime against him.

( 4 ) WHEN this matter was listed on 1-3-2001 for hearing, the learned State Public Prosecutor (S. P. P.), representing the State was directed to have the affidavit of the concerned Investigating Officer ("the I. O. " for short) filed explaining as to why the investigation in the said crime was not yet completed. When that affidavit was not filed within the granted time, an order was passed on 21-3-2001 directing the Registrar, Lokayuktha to keep himself present in Court to inform about the progress and stage of the investigation in said Crime No. 1/94. Then the matter was listed on 22-3-2001, on which date, it was submitted by learned S. P. P. that the final report was filed in the trial Court on 15-3-2001 on completion of the investigation. Thereafter, on 4-4-2001 the affidavit of the I. O. was filed in compliance with the direction given on 1-3-2001 furnishing the so-called explanation for the delay caused in filing of the charge-sheet against accused.

( 5 ) THE certified copy of the entire order sheet of the trial Court in Special Case No. 36/2001 pertaining to the said Crime No. 1/94 is produced by the learned counsel for petitioner, along with a memo, which discloses that the said charge-sheet filed by the I. O. was received in Court on 23-3-2001.

( 6 ) THUS, the total period from the date of registration of the said Crime No. 1/94, i. e. , from 4-2-1994 till the date of submission of the final report, i. e. , charge-sheet, on 23-3-2001, works out to seven years one month and 19 days. The explanation for this shockingly long delay of seven years one month and 19 days furnished by the I. O. in his said affidavit is that; since 11-7-2000 he has been working as a Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Mangalore. He took up further investigation of the crime and on completion thereof, the charge-sheet was handed over by him to the concern public prosecutor on 24-11-2000 for its filing in Court, who returned it with certain observations which required rectification in the charge-sheet papers. After attending the same, the charge-sheet was again given to the said Public Prosecutor on 8-12-2000, who on scrutiny thereof, again returned it to the I. O. for further rectification. Accordingly, it was attended to by the I. O. and then the charge-sheet was given to the Public Prosecutor on 19-3-2