( 1 ) THE State Bank of India, Gandhidham (Kachchh) Branch by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has moved this Court voicing a serious grievance against the illegal and unjust protracted proceedings merrily going on for about last 11 years before the Court of the learned J. M. F. C. , Gandhidham, with no immediate signs of being started in forseeable future inter alia praying for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the concerned learned magistrate to immediately proceed ahead with the pending Criminal Case No. 1265 of 1984 and to decide the same at the earliest. Incidentally, at this stage, it may be pointed out that the relief of expeditious trial prayed for by the petitioner bank can even be prayed for by filing Misc. Criminal Application under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and for that purpose, it is indeed not necessary to go to the Constitution, making petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2/3/4. To state few relevant facts briefly, leading to this petition, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 : Mr. P. D. Sheth was serving as Field Officer in its Branch Office at Gandhidham. During his service tenure, he fabricated certain drafts and cheques, forging signatures and thereby misappropriated the huge amount of Rs. 1,75,000. 00. On the basis of these allegations, the said Bank through its responsible officer, filed a Criminal Complaint against respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences under Secs. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code before the Police on 31-8-1983, as a result of which he thereafter came to be suspended from service on 2-9-1983. After the investigation was over, on 6-3-1984, the investigating agency submitted the charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Magistrate at Gandhidham. Thereafter, the case went on being indiscreetly adjourned on and on and in the process ultimately more than as many as 11 years have passed by and yet there do not appear to be any ray of hope of its commencement in foreseeable future. Under the circumstances, Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank has voiced quite a serious concern and anxiety towards the way in which the trial came to be disgustingly protracted before the Gandhidham Court; in the first instance by the respondent-accused, in the second instance, by the concerned learned Public Prosecutors in charge of the case at the relevant time, and in the third instance, by the learned Magistrate who indeed quite readily and indiscreetly granted adjournments after adjournments to the accused on mere asking, quite unmindful of the essence and importance of the time factor for the prosecution and expeditious trial. Mr. Desai further submitted that if this is the way in which the trial is to be conducted, then in that case ultimately, the prosecution may succeed or fail, it is entirely the concern and question of fate of the prosecution for which the State has to worry about, but so far as the petitioner-Bank is concerned, because of the protracted proceedings, it has indeed been unnecessarily put to great financial burden and loss as it has to pay suspension allowance without taking in return work from the accused for no fault of it. Further, according to Mr. Desai, respondent no. 2 came to be suspended in August 1983 and for last 12 years, staying idle and doing nothing he has been sheer dead weight on the Banks fund which in a way is public money and that too for no fault of the complainant-Bank. The suspension allowance paid so far to respondent No. 2 according to Mr. Desai, approximately comes to Rs. 1,40,000. 00. The contention of Mr. Desai is that after filing of the charge-sheet in the year 1984 for all these eleven years, the trial has not progressed an inch further, as a result, the Bank is unnecessarily continuously saddled with increasing financial liabilities simply because the con