S. I. JAFRI, J. This application has been filed by H. D. Mundra the then Chairman of the Board of Directors, British India Corporation Limited, Kanpur and B. D. Daga, for quashing the charge-sheet and the proceedings in S. T. Nos. 110 and 110-A of 1959 pending against them in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in crime No. 300 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/114/120-B, I. P. C. The charge-sheet was submitted in the court after an investigation was conducted by the C. I. D. on the complaint dated 30. 1. 58 presented before the District Magistrate, Kanpur by Sri R. L. Powell, agent to the receiver, Begg Suther Land & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The charge-sheet was submitted by Sri Indra Pal Singh, Deputy S. P. , C. I. D. on 17. 8. 1958. 2. The prosecution case is that H. D. Mundra, applicant, being as Chairman of the Board of Directors, British India Corporation entered into a criminal conspiracy along with B. D. Daga the applicant No. 2 and one M. C. Mitra (since deceased) with a view to cheat Kanpur Textiles and Elgin Mills Ltd. Corporation, Managed by B. I. C. (British India Corporation)in order to obtain money from them i. e. one lac was taken on 20. 11. 1957 and 2 lacs on 25. 11. 1957. It was further alleged by the prosecution that H. D. Mundra with a view to obtain the aforesaid amount represented to Mr. H. Hill, the Cotton Director of B. I. C that the money taken was meant for Associated Commercial Corporation of Calcut ta who were in need of money and who would be setting it off against the Cotton to be supplied by them from their Branch Office at Fazilka. It was further alleged by the prosecution that the aforesaid money was not taken from for the aforesaid purpose by the applicants as the Fazilka Unit of M/s Associated Commercial Corporation kept on charg ing cash price for the cotton supplied by them. 3. It was further alleged that the applicants have obtained the aforesaid amount by playing deception. B. D. Daga applicant having cash the bearer cheques in favour of M/s. Associated Commercial Corporation and he signed on the back of the cheques as K. K. Daga, Partner M/s. Associated Commercial Corporation in token of receipt of payment of the amount. 3. It was further alleged that the applicants have obtained the aforesaid amount by playing deception. B. D. Daga applicant having cash the bearer cheques in favour of M/s. Associated Commercial Corporation and he signed on the back of the cheques as K. K. Daga, Partner M/s. Associated Commercial Corporation in token of receipt of payment of the amount. The aforesaid cheques was said to be given to the applicant H. D. Mundra by Mr. H. Hill (now dead) Cotton Director of B. I. C. and incharge of Cotton Affairs of all units of B. I. C. 4. The applicants were committed to the court of Sessions by learned Magistrate on 18. 7. 1959 to stand their trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and took the stand that the cheques in dispute were never handed over to H. D. Mundra applicant by Mr. H. Hill. 5. The trial of the accused applicants commenced in the Court of Sri R. K. Circar, IHrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in beginning of the year 1965. Thirty witnesses were examined at Kanpur, Azamgarh and Gorakhpur, during the posting of Sri R. K. Circar in those districts. The statement (only examination-in- chief) of Sri H. Hill was recorded in England on Commission on 12. 12. 63 behind the back of the applicants as there was no notice to the applicants of the date of examination of Mr. Hill despite the order of the Sessions Judge that the date of examination of Mr. Hill in England be communicated to the applicant in order to enable them to the present for cross-examina tion either in person or through Counsels it appears that on account of the death of Mr. H. Hill in England the applicants could not cross examined him. 6. Sri R. K. Circar Sessions Judge with whom the case remained tied up throughout, retired from service on 7. 8. 67 whereupon the High Court ordered f0or the de novo trial and the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur consequently sent back the file of the case to the Court of Session Judge, Kanpur on 5. 1. 68 for denovo trial. 7. The case came up for further hearing before Sri J. P. Sharma, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur who amended the charges on 11. l. 80. The applicants filed the present applicaion in this Court u/s 482, Cr. 1. 68 for denovo trial. 7. The case came up for further hearing before Sri J. P. Sharma, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur who amended the charges on 11. l. 80. The applicants filed the present applicaion in this Court u/s 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending in the Court of Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur whereupon the High Court stayed further proceedings in both the abovementioned trials on 8. 6. 1980 and since then the trial is hanging for disposal in the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur. 8. Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the occur rence in this case is said to have taken place about 33 years before and since then the applicants remained under mental strain and torture on account of the pendency of the trial. He further submitted that the applicants were not responsible for the undue delay in the trial. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that even the disputed entire amount was paid to the Company in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit in support of the application it was given that Rs. l lack was returned back on 13. 1. 1958 to the B. I. C. and likewise another 1 lac and 15,000. 00 was paid on 29. 1. 1962 to the Elgin Mill As sociated Commercial Corporation in full and final satisfaction, by virtue of a compromise decree, Annexure V to the present application. A perusal of Annexure V clearly indi cates that the parties to the suit i. e. Mis Englin Mills and Corporation v. H. D. Mundra and others in Suit No. 185/60 had compromise and the decree on the basis of compromise was passed by the court of 1st Civil Judge, Kanpur on 14. 2. 1962 in full and final satisfaction of the plaintiff dues, including cost of the suit. The learned counsel urged that under above circumstances no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the applicants in this case as it appears that there was no reason for the applicants to have committed the offence with which the applicants were charged. 9. Reliance was placed on Mechandel v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 , wherein the accused charged with murder was not questioned u/s 342, Cr. 9. Reliance was placed on Mechandel v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 792 , wherein the accused charged with murder was not questioned u/s 342, Cr. P. C. about the confession made by him six days after the arrest by the trial court. It was contended before the Supreme Court by the prosecution to send back the case to the trial court for further examination of the accused u/s 342 Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the State Counsel on the ground that the trial of the appellant had con tinued for over 4- 1/2years. The Supreme Court observed as under: "we are not prepared to keep persons who are on trial for their lives under indefinite suspense because trial Judges omit to do their duty. Justice is not one sided. It has many facets and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicling rights and duties. While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape, it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harased. " The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the conviction and sentence of the appellant was set aside. 10. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Union of India and another v. Lt. Col. G. K. Apte and others, AIR 1971 SC 1533 . In this case a delay of 11 years in trial was held by the Supreme Court as fatal. The Supreme Court did not interfere under Article 136 for quashing the order of acquittal passed by the High Court on the ground that 11 years have elapsed since the charges were framed and thereafter the High Court had quashed the charges while exercising its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court observed that "even the material evidence sought to be produced relating to the year 1960 may not be readily available after a lapse of nearly 11 years. In these circumstance we feel that it will not promote the interest of justice to set aside the orders of the High Court even if it be assumed that the High Court was some what wrong in quashing the charges and the proceedings against the respondent. 11. The learned counsel also placed before me State of U. P v. Kapil Devo Shukla, AIR 1973 SC 494 . 11. The learned counsel also placed before me State of U. P v. Kapil Devo Shukla, AIR 1973 SC 494 . In this case the Supreme Court did not interfere in proceeding of a trial u/s. 408 and 477, I. P. C. which were quashed by the High Court u/s 561, Cr. P. C. on the ground of delay in the trial for more than 20 years. " 12. Reliance was also placed on Hussen Ara Khatun and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1979 Cr. LJ 1036 wherein speedy trial of the accused has been held to be part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Stephen and others v. Parle Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. and others, 1988 ACC 181, wherein a delay of 16 years was held to be fatal for the continuance of trial. 14. Lastly, the learned counsel also placed before me Shahabuddin Qureshi Applicant v. State of U. P, 1988 ACC 303 wherein this Court quashed the proceedings pending against the accused u/s 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, on the ground of delay in the trial for over 18 years. 15. It is pointed out that in this petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. notice was issued to the respondent State of U. P. by this Court on 8. 8. 1982 but the prosecution did not care to file a counter- affidavit till today. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the ap plicants cannot be put on trial for indefinite period. I am fully satisfied that the con tinuance of the trial i. e. S. T No 110 of 1959 connected with S. T. No. 110-A of 1959 against the applicants pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur cannot be permitted to continue further after a gap of about 33 years. Most of the prosecution witnesses are likely to have been died and under the circumstances the denovo trial i. e. fresh trial of the applicants now after 33 years of the occurrence is not at all justified and proper in the interest of justice. 17. In the result, the application u/s 482 Cr. Most of the prosecution witnesses are likely to have been died and under the circumstances the denovo trial i. e. fresh trial of the applicants now after 33 years of the occurrence is not at all justified and proper in the interest of justice. 17. In the result, the application u/s 482 Cr. P. C. preferred by the applicants is allowed and proceedings in S. T. No. 110/59 connected with the S. T. No. 110-A of 1959 pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur are quashed. Appeal allowed. .