A criminal prosecution must be pursued with expedition as otherwise a protracted trial becomes oppressive and often results in undue harassment to the accused.

LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THESE ten cases seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner arise out of the common set of facts and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. During the period 1966 to 1976 the petitioner was functioning as the Accountant in East Coast Salt and Chemical Industries Ltd. In 1976 he was promoted as the Assistant Accounts Officer. In the year 1978 certain financial irregularities were detected having been committed by him and he was called upon to make good the loss to the extent of Rs. 60,000/ -. Such amount was deposited in two instalments on 12-1-1979 and 25-1-1979 respectively, and on 28-3-1980 he was dismissed from service. Thereafter in the year 1983 a complaint case was filed against the petitioner by the management of the company, numbered as I. C. C. Case No. 114 of 1983 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, alleging commission of offences punishable u/ss. 409,467, 471 and 477, IPC. The complaint was forwarded by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate to the Officer-in-charge, Capital Police Station for investigation. Thereupon the Capital Police Station Case No. 679 of 1983 was registered on 2-9-1983. On 30-6-1986 the Investigating Officer drew up nine more FIRs and submitted chargesheets on 10-7-1986 in all the ten cases. The charges were framed on 2-6-1988 u/ss. 409, 467, 471 and 477-A, IPC in all the cases. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the alleged offences against the petitioner relate to the period from 1968 to 1978 and that periods ranging from 12 to 23 years have elapsed in the meantime and the trial has not commenced, such prosecution of criminal 1cases against him is violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and hence the prosecutions have become liable to he quashed on account of inordinate delay.

( 2 ) THAT speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused is no longer res integra the question having been conclusively decided in AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036) Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary and AIR 1981 SC 939 : (1981 Cri LJ 481) Khadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar. A man placed under a criminal proceeding lives under an apprehension of conviction every moment and by a protracted and unresponsive trial the agony of the person concerned is unduly stretched which is incompatible with the fundamental right to life which concept takes in itself the right to live with human dignity. That being so, it must beheld that a criminal prosecution must be pursued with expedition as otherwise a protracted trial becomes oppressive and often results in undue harassment to the accused. In AIR 1986 SC 289 : (1986 Cri LJ 255) S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd. , where the accused persons were prosecuted u/s. 341, IPC and S. 36ad of the Banking Regulation Act but were acquitted by the trial court and the judgment of acquittal was set aside by the High Court remanding the case for retrial u/s. 341 read with S. 34 or S. 149, IPC, and as against that an appeal was presented to the Supreme Court, the Apex Court, in consideration of the fact that the appeal had remained pending for six years in the High Court, directed that retrial should not have been ordered even though it was found that the acquittal, was improper. In AIR 1987 SC 740 Rakesh Saxena v. State through C. B. 1. the Supreme Court again quashed the prosecution where the offence was alleged to have been committed six years back as it was felt that in view of the complicated nature of the case the trial is bound to occupy the time of the trial court for not less than two or three years and it is extremely doubtful as to whether the prosecution will result in conviction. In AIR 1989 SC 1789: (1989 Cri LJ 2106) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh where the accused had been charged under Fertilisers (Movement Control) Order, 1973 and were convicted for the first time in the Supreme Court, the Court dec