JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under section 482 Cr. PC has been filed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the matter has been pending for more than 11 years and the prosecution has not taken proper steps to conclude its evidence. It is urged that the fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial has thus been jeopardised. I have perused the certified copies of the order, sheets and the summary of the proceedings produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, of course, unfortunate that the matter has been pending for the last more than 11 years but the delay cannot be attributted solely to the prosecution or to the court. The petitioner also had been a party to the delay and in these circumstances in the present case, he cannot legitimately urge that his right to speedy trial has been jeopardised on the ground of the laches of the prosecution or the court. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention on Madha shwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, 1986 Cr. L.J. 1971 & Hussainara Khatoon and others v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1369 . The principles laid down in these two authorities are well known and there cannot be quarrel with them but as already stated above in the present case it cannot be said that the proceedings have been delayed on account of the prosecution alone. It may be mentioned that the petitioner himself had earlier moved an application for quashing the proceedings by resort to section 197 Cr. PC. Then he moved an application for transfer of the case and then on account of the exigencies and administrative reasons, the case had to travel from one court to another for about six times. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the proceedings need not be quashed merely on the ground of delay. However, to ensure that the matter is now no long prolonged, it is directed that the learned P.P. will see that all the remaining witnesses are produced before the court on the next date fixed for hearing. The court shall examine them day by day so that no further adjournement for the prosecution evidence is necessitated. However, to ensure that the matter is now no long prolonged, it is directed that the learned P.P. will see that all the remaining witnesses are produced before the court on the next date fixed for hearing. The court shall examine them day by day so that no further adjournement for the prosecution evidence is necessitated. After the close of the prosecution case, the matter will be for the petitioner himself to produce his defence and see that the matter is disposed of without any further delay and as far as possible it should be disposed of within a period of two months, from today.Order accordingly. *******