JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the petitioner, Shri Lalit Kumar Singh, for quashing the Criminal Proceeding in Basar P.S. Case No. 01/2009, under section 409 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:-

“On 22.01.2009, Shri Ghana Kanta Deori, the Branch Manager, Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (APRB) Basar Branch lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station to the effect that Shri Lalit Kumar Singh, the Branch Manager of (APRB), Basar Branch, up to 21.01.2009, has misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 11,36,000/ in different accounts and in different style from APRB, Basar Branch, during the period of his Branch Managership, in December 08 and January 2009. Upon the said FIR the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station, registered Basar P.S. Case No. 01/2009, under section 409 IPC, and endorsed S.I. Talang Jamoh, to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and seized relevant documents and arrested the accused and forwarded him to the court. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge sheet against the accused to stand trial in the court under section 409 IPC, citing as many as seven witnesses. Upon the said charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process to the accused. Accordingly, the accused before the learned court below and then hearing both the sides the learned court below has framed charge against the petitioner under section 409 IPC and on being read and explained over the same to him he pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned court below has issued summoned to the prosecution witnesses and has examined as many as four witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution side has failed to produce the remaining two witnesses despite issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against them. While the case is pending for examination of rest of the witnesses, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition on the ground that the prosecution side has failed to produced the witnesses and on account of that he has repeatedly requested the learned court below to close the prosecution evidence, but, the learned court below has not closed the same, and that there is no outstanding amount to be paid to the bank on the part of the petitioner and that mere delay in refunding the amount would not constitute the offence under section 409 IPC, and that he is entitled to the benefit of section 96 IPC as the over draft was only for self defence and that there was also no entrustment of fund to him, and that during investigation the I.O. had failed to seize some vital documents and that the petitioner was made a scapegoat, and that delay in trial, since 2009, violate his right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside and quashing the entire criminal proceeding.”

4. Mr. G. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the F.I.R. was filed in the year 2009, and charge sheet was filled within eight months and since then the case is pending for last 13 years. Mr. Taloh further submits that the alleged amount has already been paid and that the petitioner is suffering from different old age ailments and there was no criminality in the action of the petitioners. Mr. Taloh, therefore, contended to allow this petition by setting aside and quashing the FIR, or alternatively, to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo to complete the trail with in a definite time frame.

5. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the