The main legal point established is that speedy trial is a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution, and compensation can be awarded for its violation.

A.K. PATNAIK, C.J. :- This is an appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 24-8-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4638 of 2007.

2. The relevant facts briefly are that the appellant was running a Coaching Centre named "Deepika Classes" preparing students for taking Pre-Medical Test, Pre-Engineering Test and other tests for admissions to MBBS, Dental, Engineering, IIT courses. On 8-6-1992, a raid was conducted in the house of the appellant at the instance of Shri Raghava Chandra, the then Collector, Jabalpur and thereafter a Criminal Case No. 314 of 2004 under Sections 420 read with Section 34, IPC was registered against the appellant. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and after trial, the appellant was acquitted on 26-8-2004. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 4368 of 2004 contending inter alia that although the appellant was in police custody in Police Station, Gorakhpur since 10.00 p.m. on 8-6-1992, he was unnecessarily handcuffed by the Police and a number of daily newspapers published his photographs and his sister, who loved him, on seeing his photographs was shocked and expired on 17-6-1992. The appellant also contended in the writ petition that the prosecution knew right from the beginning that the cases registered against the appellant were false and did not deliberately send notices to the three independent witnesses Jitendra, Shailendra and Arun Chouksey from 1992 up to 2003 and the witnesses were produced before the Court only at the end of 2003 and thus there was violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed that the respondents 2 to 20 should be prosecuted under the relevant sections of law and the respondent No. 21 onwards should be prosecuted for criminal defamation and other sections of law.

3. When the writ petition came up for admission before the Court, a learned single Judge in his order dated 24-2-2005 ordered that he was inclined to admit the matter only with regard to issue regarding grant of compensation for causation of delay in disposal of Criminal Case No. 314 of 2004, which arose in relation to the occurrence of the year 1992 and accordingly directed issuance of notices to respondents 1 and 6 to 17 only.

4. Pursuant to the notices, returns were filed by respondent No. 1 and some other respondents and a learned single Judge of this Court heard the learned counsel for parties, and after going through the documents filed by the appellant as well as the record pertaining to Criminal Case No. 314 of 2004 held that on a few occasions, time was sought from the trial Court by the prosecution but on most of the occasions trial was adjourned at the instance of the appellant himself and from the proceedings of the trial Court, it cannot be held that unnecessary or deliberate adjournments were sought by the prosecution in order to delay the trial and hence the question of granting compensation for delay in trial to the appellant did not arise and accordingly dismissed the writ petition by order dated 24-8-2007.

5. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for review of the order dated 24-8-2007 passed by the learned single Judge which is numbered as MCC No. 7325 of 2005 in which the appellant contended that the Additional Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the State submitted a typed copy of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 314 of 2004 in which incorrect dates of proceedings were mentioned and for this reason, the learned single Judge held that unnecessary and deliberate adjournments were sought by the appellant in order to delay the trial and dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the review petition by order dated 12-10-2007 saying that the record of the criminal case was very much available when the matter was argued and the order dis