( 1 ) THESE applications, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having the same parties and having raised the same issues for the same reliefs, they were heard together and are disposed by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has prayed to quash Criminal Cases Nos. 929 of 1973 and 930 of 1973 which are pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Anjar wherein the applicant is charged with the offences punishable under the provisions of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

( 3 ) THE applications were pressed mainly on the basis that the petitioner has by now reached the ripe old-age of 80 years even as the criminal cases have been dragging as against him since the year 1973. It appears from the record that the charges were framed against the petitioner in September, 1974 and were altered in the month of March/april, 1976. After the original operation of search and seizure wherein gold and silver were confiscated in the year 1971, the complaint came to be filed in 1973 and, even after the statement of the petitioner being recorded as an accused person in May 1976, the prosecution had applied for permission to examine more witnesses in June, 1976. When such application for additional evidence was rejected by the trial Court and the revision preferred from such order was also rejected in January 1978 by the Sessions Court, the High Court was approached by the prosecution. And, upon the application being allowed by the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court which confirmed in 1990 the judgment of the High Court. Thus, a new phase of litigation, after about 14 years of framing of the charges, began in the year 1991 and the petitioner was constrained to apply for recalling the witnesses who were already examined. Such applications of the petitioner remained pending in the trial court for about seven years. The orders of the trial court closing the right of the accused to recall the witnesses were, by consent, set aside by the order dated 21. 1. 2003 of this court and still the problem persisted because the witnesses required to be recalled for cross-examination were not available or could not be served. Ultimately, the matter was struck at the stage when only one remaining witness, namely, Hasmukhlal Ambalal Pandya, could not be cross-examined due to his having migrated to the Unites States.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cross-examination of the aforesaid last remaining witness was absolutely necessary for the proper defence of the petitioner and, if the prosecution were directed to supply the new address of that witness, the applicant would request the trial Court to record further cross-examination of that witness by appointment of a Commission under section 284 of the Cr. P. C. Apart from that, the main contention on behalf of the petitioner was that, after such prolonged pendency and prosecution, the petitioner was entitled to be relieved of the proceedings and, on that basis, the proceedings were required to be quashed in the interest of justice in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY v. R. S. NAYAK [ (1992) 1 SCC 225] to submit that criminal proceedings must be concluded with reasonable despatch and the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. It was pointed out that in case of inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings, the Court has discretion under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings having regard to attendant circumstances and relevant factors. Similar observations of another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in P. RAMACHANDRA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA [ (2002) 4 SCC 578] were also relied upon to emphasis the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY (s