The right of an accused to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not absolute and must be balanced against the interest of justice.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated the 3rd April, 1991 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/3285/77 dismissing an application filed by the petitioner accused under section 245 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for an order of discharge as the prosecution could not complete the evidence before charge within 4 years from the date of his appearance in the case. The complainant Smt. Archana Guha filed a petition of complaint and thereafter Summonses were issued against the accused persons under sections 166, 330/34, 331/34, 348/34 and 509 I. P. C. The petitioner accused Santosh Dey appeared in that case on 11-2-78. It is relevant here to mention that Runu Guha Neogi who is also an accused appeared in the case on 5-11-77. By an order dated 20-12-78 the case was then committed by the Learned Magistrate to the Court of Session for trial. Thereafter this Court was moved and a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of commitment and sent back the case to the Court below with a direction to try the same in accordance with the procedure laid down for the trial of a warrant case on the ground that there was no ground for issuing process under section 331/34 I. P. C. which was the only section by reason of which the case was committed to the Court of Session. After the case thus went back on remand to the Learned Magistrate notices were issued to the accused persons for their appearance and pursuant to such notice the petitioner Santosh Dey appeared before the Learned Magistrate on 25-8-81. It may be mentioned here that the accused Runu Guha Neogi appeared before the Learned Magistrate on 3-2-81 pursuant to such notice. The examination of the complainant in the case under section 244 Cr. P. C. thereafter started on 5-11-81, but the same could not be concluded as an application was filed on behalf of the defence challenging the competency of the learned Advocate Shri A. P. Chatterjee to conduct the case of the complainant. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and in the process six years rolled on. The examination of the complainant, however, could be resumed before the Learned Magistrate only on 17-7-87 and was then deferred to 22-7-87 on the prayer of the complainant. On 22-7-87 the complainant was further examined but her examination could not be completed because some organisations filed applications before the Learned Magistrate and the defence prayed for making reference to the High Court for drawing up contempt proceedings against those organisations. The Learned Magistrate, however, rejected the prayer and fixed 3-8-87 for further evidence. But further proceeding of the case was stayed by the Learned Sessions Judge upon an application filed by the defence under section 408 Cr. P. C. for transfer of the case. The matter then came up to the High Court. However, after the records went back to the Court of the Learned Magistrate notices were issued on 28-11-87 for appearance of the accused persons and the complainant took two adjournments on 29-12-87 and 2-3-88 but on 22-3-88 when the case was posted for evidence the defence filed an application for discharge of accused on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the trial. The matter then went to the High Court and the same is now pending before the Supreme Court. Inspite of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, the said Court, however, by order dated 6-8-90 in Appeal No. 652 of 1988 directed that the proceedings under section 245 (3) of the West Bengal Amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure may go on and be disposed of and thereafter proceedings may continue but no final order is to be passed until disposal of the said appeal pending before the Supreme Court. It was further directed by the Supreme Court therein that if the accused is discharged under section 245 no proceedings will go on and in case the accused is not discharged