JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 20.12.1988 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City in criminal case No. 202/79, by which he rejected the petitioner's application under section 311 Cr. P.C. in which prayer had been made for calling Shri Hazari Lal Mahajan, partner of firm Bhagwan Sahai Ramavtar, Nai Mandi as witness along with record for evidence. 2. A trial is pending in which it is alleged by the petitioner that the accused non-petitioner cheated him by representing to be owner/muneem of firm Bhagwan Sahai Ramavtar and purchased 84 quintal of paddy at the rate of Rs. l04/- per quintal. In fact, the firm had already been dissolved. Therefore, the proceedings under section 402 IPC were initiated by petitioner against the accused non-petitioner. 3. It is submitted by Shri R.S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that he had earlier also on 17-5-86 moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. to call the firm Bhagwan Sahai Ramavtar along with its record for evidence. This application was rejected by trial Court vide its order dated 5-12-1986. Against this order, a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. (No. 85/87) was filed in this Court which was also rejected on April 2, 1987. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel that it was observed by this Court that the application moved before the learned Magistrate is vague and misconceived. Since the firm stands already dissolved and the petitioner wanted to all one of the erstwhile partners of the firm, it could be considered in case he could satisfy the trial Court regarding his bonafides. It is contended by the learned counsel that now an application was filed to summon Shri Hazari Lal erstwhile partner of the firm along with record for the purposes of evidence. This application deserved to be allowed as it has important bearing on the trial and it is not vague in any sense. 4. It is submitted by Shri N.L. Tibrewal learned counsel for the non-petitioner that a complaint was filed in the trial Court by the petitioner as early as Sept. 7, 1979 under section 420 IPC. The statements of the complainant and other witness were recorded on September 17, 1979, and cognizance of the offence was also taken on the same day. It is submitted by Shri N.L. Tibrewal learned counsel for the non-petitioner that a complaint was filed in the trial Court by the petitioner as early as Sept. 7, 1979 under section 420 IPC. The statements of the complainant and other witness were recorded on September 17, 1979, and cognizance of the offence was also taken on the same day. The petitioner filed a list of witnesses as early as on November 6, 1979. Two witnesses were recalled for evidence on February 10, 1984 for cross examination. While the evidence of these witnesses was recorded, it came out from evidence that the said firm has already been closed. It is, further contended by the learned counsel that when in the year 1986 arguments for framing charge were heard, the petitioner tried to fill up the lacuna in his evidence and filed the previous application dated May 17, 1986 for calling the firm alongwith the record. This application was rejected by the trial Court as also the miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in this Court. It is, further, submitted that while rejecting the application dated May 17, 1986 filed by the petitioner, it was observed by the trial Court that the application was not bonafide and has been filed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Reliance has been placed on State v. B.S. Saxena, 1972 RLW 465 and K.K. Tiwari v. S.P. CBI, Raj. & Anr., 1989 RCC 249 . 5. I have heard both the parties and also gone through the order of the trial Court. It is evident that the proceedings are by this time as many as 10 years old and still the charge has yet to be framed. The trial Court while rejecting the application, has observed that the petitioner has filed this application to fill up the lacunas in his evidence. To say the least it is only desirable that the trial should be completed as speedily as possible. The speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused person, who has to undergo mental torture when the trial drags on for as long as 10 years in this case. To say the least it is only desirable that the trial should be completed as speedily as possible. The speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused person, who has to undergo mental torture when the trial drags on for as long as 10 years in this case. The bare reading of section 311 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that it is in the discretion of the trial Court to summon material witness, or examine a person in present Court, if it thinks that such evidence appears to be essential to the just decision. The trial Court has observed that the application has been filed only with a view to fill up the lacunas in the evidence of the petitioner.I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court, the application is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******