ORDER This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.200 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Pollachi, and to quash the same. 2. The first information report against the accused was filed on 22.7.1982. After investigation, a final report under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Investigation Officer to the effect that offences under Sec. 4(1)(a) and Sec.4(1)(g) read with Sec.11 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act appeared to have been committed by the accused. Upon perusal of that report and the documents appended therewith, the Magistrate framed charges accordingly on 12.10.1983. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned 101 times without any progress in the matter. Aggrieved by such a course, the accused has filed this petition on 1.8.1988 praying to quash the proceedings. 3. The petitioner's case is that there is inordinate delay in the trial of the case which fact constituted on abuse of process of law and was violative of the constitutional rights of the accused to speedy justice. He further added that he was a resident of Palani and that on each adjourned date he was compelled to go to Pollachi in order to attend the Court only to learn that his case was adjourned again and again. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed before me in support of his contention two decisions, viz. the decision of this Court in Kothanda Pillai v. State in Kothanda Pillai v. State 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 112 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh in G.Balchand Verma v. The State of AP. G.Balchand Verma v. The State of AP. (1986)1 Crimes 175 In the second decision, there is also a reference to two other decisions of the Supreme Court, viz. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar viz. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1360:1979 L.W. (Crl.) 29 (S.N.) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1982)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 48 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1982 S.C.1167. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar viz. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1360:1979 L.W. (Crl.) 29 (S.N.) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1982)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 48 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1982 S.C.1167. In both the cases, the Supreme Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Art.21 of the Constitution and that the accused, who is entitled to such a right, was entitled to approach the Courts for the enforcement of the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Public Prosecutor stated that the case could not be processed through on account of the non-availability of the doctor, who was a witness in this case and who was not traceable as he was suspended. But we do not find in the docket sheet of the Magistrate that such a reason was given to him when the case was taken up. It is also not known when the doctor was suspended and from when he was not traceable. 6. The fact of being charged with an offence creates certainly a stigma against a person and will cause to him certain handicaps. The status of the accused person as a free and fullfledged citizen is curtailed. Further the fact of having to attend the Court hundred times for no purpose constitutes undoubtedly an inroad into his personal liberty, when such appearances are not necessary for the process of justice. In this case, it is not shown why the case has been adjourned to many times without ascertaining the number and the availability of the witnesses. I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the petitioners is right in contending that in the circumstances of the case the petition should be quashed for violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner for speedy justice. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No. 22 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Pollachi, are quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.