The right to speedy trial does not impose a strict time limit for completing prosecution evidence, and the prosecution can seek further time if the delay is not its fault.

1. - By this criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.RC., petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings pending against him before the trial court. The petitioner is facing trial for offence under section 411 I.RC. the petitioner filed an application before the trial court on 31.1.2001 for closing of prosecution evidence and decision on the basis of whatever evidence recorded by the trial court. Vide order dated 3.2.2001, the trial court dismissed the said application.

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of whole proceedings on the ground that petitioner is facing trial for last 7 years and the trial could not be completed even after completion of 7 years. The offence for which the petitioner is charged, is under section 411 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case in which the punishment prescribed is for a period of 3 years and if the prosecution does not complete its evidence within a period of 2 years from the date of framing of charge, then the evidence of the prosecution should be closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court Issued certain directions for effective enforcement of the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. A petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for directions/modifications/clarification of the directions of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma's case (supra), in Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 604 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in fact, in the judgment. In the main appeal in the present case, the Supreme Court has not fixed any time limit for conclusion of trial. As such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only laid down guidelines for closing the prosecution evidence in certain circumstances. There is difference between time fixing for disposal of a trial and fixing time limit for prosecution to complete its evidence. A perusal of the guidelines contained in the main judgment would itself show that there is no hard and fast rule applicable to every case, irrespective of facts and circumstances thereof. If the delay is not due to any fault of the prosecution, it is open to the prosecution to place the relevant facts before the court and seek further time for producing its evidence. The judgment in appeal cannot be understood as punishing the prosecution and preventing it from adducing evidence when it is not responsible for the delay.

4. In State of Tamil Nadu v. A.M. Vedachalam, 2001 AIR SCW 2455 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered both the above noticed judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and observed that it is open to the trial court to close the evidence of prosecution, whether prosecution exhausts the list of witnesses or not, on the expiry of one year from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. It was further observed that it is needless to point out that the time taken at the instance of the accused will be excluded from the said period of one year.

5. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 411 I.RC. which is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or with both. The charges were famed on 9.3.1995. Initially charge-sheet was filed against two accused persons namely, one Dulichand for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.RC. and petitioner Gauri Shankar under section 411 I.RC. After framing of the charges, co-accused Dulichand did not appear before the trial court on 4.8.1995 and thereafter, since it was the joint trial, two accused were facing the charges for different offences. The presence of accused Dulichand was sought and ultimately in the year 1996, it came to the notice of the court that accused Dulichand has expired and proceedings against him were dropped. The matter was fixed for evidence on 8