Long delay in disposal of the proceeding prejudicially affects the defence of an accused. Administration of Justice requires that the accused is entitled to have as much protection as the prosecution is entitled to. Waste of time affects the defence case and the witness which the accused may choose to examine suffers from physical inability during the trial.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application demonstrates the colossal wastage of money by Life Insurance Corporation, a public undertaking, the prosecution of a Criminal Case for 22 years for a paltry sum of Rs. 8,000/- under an Insurance Policy taken on 15th October, 1957 by one Hrishikesh Ghosh just two years before his death. This case has a chequered history.

( 2 ) ON October 15, 1957, a Life Insurance Policy was effected in favour of the said Hrishikesh Ghosh. On January 1, 1969, the said policy was assigned in favour of the petitioner and one Joydev Paul. On October 20, 1959, the said Hrishikesh Ghosh died. On March 1, 1960, claim for policy of Rs. 8,000/- was lodged on behalf of the assignees.

( 3 ) ON 2nd September, 1960, Sri. P. H. Gupta, Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Bhadreshwar Police Station against the petitioner and six others, namely Dr. Panchanan Paul (since deceased), Sri. Joydeb Paul, Sri. Ramesh Chandra Paul, Sri. Bholanath Mukherjee, Dr. Mahendralal Rakshit and Dr. Umacharan Kumar, alleging inter alia therein commission of offences punishable under Sec. 120b/420/109 of the I. P. C. 3a. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandannagore on 19th January, 1962. Subsequently the case was committed to the First Special Court at Hooghly as some of the accused persons were alleged to be public servants within the meaning of Sec. 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) ON 17th June, 1970, the then Learned Judge, First Special Court at Hooghly framed charge against the petitioner herein, Dr. Umacharan Kumar, Bholanath Mukherjee and Dr. Panchanan Paul (since deceased ).

( 5 ) AT the point of time when the charge was framed by the Learned First Special Court at Hooghly in respect of proceedings against the public servants, the procedure followed was the one adopted for trial of warrant cases instituted on complaint. Accordingly before framing of the charge witnesses were examined and the examination of witnesses began on 18th June, 1969 and terminated on 22nd May, 1970. After the framing of the charge, the case of proceed further.

( 6 ) ON 6th August, 1976, Sri. S. Maity, Learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Hooghly in compliance with the ruling of this Court dropped the proceeding holding, inter alia, that in taking cognizance of offences, Sec. 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 was not followed rendering the procedure unsustainable in law. The said order, which amounted to an order of acquittal, was assailed in this Court at the instance of the State of West Bengal, giving rise thereby to Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1976, wherein Special Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was admitted for hearing on 1st March, 1977 by the Division Bench presided over by Anil Kumar Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was ). The petitioner was impleaded as one of the accused in the said appeal and pending hearing of the appeal, the petitioner was re-arrested and released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly.

( 7 ) THE Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1976 was finally disposed of by N. C. Choudhury, J. on 18th February, 1982. The appeal was allowed and remanded to Trial Court for disposal. The Court directed for early disposal of the trial taking into account that the proceeding itself was initiated in 1966. For over five years there was no endeavour on the part of the Trial Court and no heed was paid to the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18th February, 1982, while disposing of the Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1976.

( 8 ) AFTER the disposal of the aforesaid Criminal Appeal records were sent down to the Trial Court from the Office of this Court by Office Memo No. 3346 (Criminal) dated 26th March, 1982. On numerous occasions the petitioner attended the Trial Court to ascertain as to when the further proceeding would comme