Inordinate delay in investigation and trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and may lead to the quashing of the criminal proceedings.

1. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of (SIC) or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceeding pending in the Special Criminal Case No. 9 of 1971 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Jaipur on the ground of violation of his fundamental right of speedy public trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are not material because the question posed for our consideration is a (SIC) question of (SIC) so, (SIC) facts may be briefly stated since they would provide the (SIC) drop against which the question of law arises for consideration. The (SIC) for the factual matrix may be stated thus:

3. The petitioner, in the year 1976, when he was posted and working as Income tax Officer at Sawai Madhopur, CBI, Jaipur registered a case, No. 27/76, on 17th September. 1975 against him under Section 5 read with Section 5/2 of the prevention of Corruption Act and, thereafter search of the house of the petitioner, at Sawai Madhopur as well as (SIC) family house at (SIC) was conducted at the behest of a complaint made by the immediate neighbour. During the search, documents were taken into possession It is (SIC) by the petitioner that the CBI thereafter took as many as two years to (SIC) to launch prosecution. The CBI submitted an incomplete (SIC) in the Court of Special Judge on (SIC) August. 1978 after taking (SIC) charge sheet. The CBI applied copies on 8th January, 1979. The Special Judge framed formal charge on 12th April, 1979 and thereafter the case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence. The case of the petitioner is that so far 10 years are over, yet the prosecution could not complete the evidence and the case is still pending for recording the evidence of the prosecution. There are as many as 173 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The main ground on which the relief sought in the writ petition is based is that the trial of the case has taken almost about 12 years without any result, for no fault of the petitioner, which has violated the fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy public trial. The contention of the petitioner is that under Art 21 of the Constitution it is a fundamental right of the petitioner that there should be a speedy trial in criminal case and as the prosecution has not been able seven to examine its witnesses and the trial is still pending, this court should quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and acquit him of the charges.

4. It is true that the right (SIC) a speedy trial as constitutional guarantee is a some what recent origin. How ever, by new it is well settled by precedential mandate of the Apex Court that the right to a speedy public trial is a part and parcel of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution Since the matter is no longer res integra, it would be wasteful and unnecessary to examine the issue of principle afresh Suffice it would be if we quote the principles laid down from the various judgments of the Supreme Court. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider this aspect of the matter and, it is held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. If an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to speedy trial would be violated unless... of course, the trial is held up account of some interim order passed by the Superior court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. The Supreme Court in that case further observed that consequence of the violation of fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the f