JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Roop Narain Singh was a lower division clerk in the office of Panchayat Samiti, Todabhim, district Sawai Madhopur. In the year 1975 a First Information Report was lodged against him at Police Station Todabhim alleging, Petitioner and misappropriated money amounting to over a lac of rupees while he was working as Rokadia The period for which the embezzlement alleged was 1969 to 1974. It appears that the embezzlement was detected when the accounts were audited in the year 1973-74. The First Information Report was bifurcated into six cases relating to each year and thereafter three challans were filed in 1977. two were filed m the year 1978 and one case was filed in the year 1981. The offence for which the charged are framed very from Sections 409, 407, 468, 479A, 209/120B and Section 201 read with Section 120G IPC. 2. The petitioner has moved six different petition for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground of delay m the trial of the cases. In the five cases, pending against him the charge was framed on November 6th, 1979 while in the sixth case, it was framed on August 3rd, 1989. In all the cases, no witness has been examined so far According to the petitioner, there was not a single adjournment on his behalf and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner. During he was 15 years, no progress has been made and on most of the dates witnesses were not present and it on any occasion any witness was present then the record was not available. It has been contended that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner who has been facing the trial for the last 15 years, and some times appearing on different dates in the six cases should not be further subjected to harassment and the proceedings should be quashed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. 3. In Sriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 36 there was a delay of years in proceeding with the criminal prosecution for the offence of rash and negligant driving under Section 279 read with Section 304A and 338 IPC. 3. In Sriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 36 there was a delay of years in proceeding with the criminal prosecution for the offence of rash and negligant driving under Section 279 read with Section 304A and 338 IPC. It was held that having regard to the nature of the offence there is dangerous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution. 91/2 years in a trial in a case of rash and negligent driving is too long a time. Quick justice was said to be a sine qua, a non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When the petitioner was kent in suspended animation for a long time without any cause, it was said to be against the spirit of the procedure established by law. In the circumstances, the prosecution was not allowed to proceed further. 4. In State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla, 1972 C.A.R. 459 the accused was tried and acquitted but was convicted on appeal by the High Court. Then the Supreme Court set aside the conviction as there was mistrial but left it open to the State Government to take steps for a retrial if so advised. There was a fresh proceeding for a lone time and while dealing with the delay it was observed that it is incumbent to see that the guilty do not escape but it is even more necessary to see that persons are not indefinitely harassed. The fact that the long lapse of time and possibility of supplying of (illegible) lapse of police statement and other relevant documents was likely to end in the trial not being fair and just, the trial should not be allowed to (illegible). 5. In K.K. Tiwari v. S.P. (C.B.I.), 1989 RCC 269 it this held that speedy trial is a fund, mental right the accused and the delay in the trial violating this right and a delay which does not arise on account of fault of the accused would violate the constitutional guarantee and the proceedings was quashed. In T.J Stephen & others v. M/s. Parle Botting Co. In T.J Stephen & others v. M/s. Parle Botting Co. (P) Ltd. & Others, 1988 (Gupp) SCC 458 the case was under Import and Exports (Control) Act and the delay was also mainly on account of malafide move of the accused but in the circumstances, it was held that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the prosecution to start 20 years after the offence has been committed.To similar effect is the decision of State of Bihar v. Uma Shanker Ketriwal and others, 1981 (1) SCC 75 This Court also considered this matter in Mangi Lal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 161/1982 decided on December 5th, 1985 . The accused in this case was a manager of Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. and was said to have committed embezzlement of more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. After framing of charge in the year 1968, no progress was made for 17 years and not a single witness was examined. There was a direction to the Sessions Judge to take the case on day-to-day basis and decide the same expeditiously but there was no progress in the case. In these circumstances, the proceedings were quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that this Court should allow some time, say six months for concluding the trial and if within this period the trial is not concluded, the proceedings may be quashed. Relying upon the case of K.K. Tiwari v. C.B.I., 1989 RCC 117 it is contended first this Court had granted three month's time to produce the remaining witnesses and to take the case day-to-day and only lateron the proceedings were quashed in the subsequent writ petition. 7. I have considered the contentions urged on behalf of both the sides and examined the record of the trial court. There is no doubt about it that for a very long period no progress has been made in the cases. Not a single witness has been examined in about 12 years after the framing of charge. The record was not made available where by chance a couple of witnesses were present. The alleged embezlement relates to the years 1969 to 1974 and this by itself shows that the matter is a very old one and the prosecution is for the offence committed about 20 years ago. The record was not made available where by chance a couple of witnesses were present. The alleged embezlement relates to the years 1969 to 1974 and this by itself shows that the matter is a very old one and the prosecution is for the offence committed about 20 years ago. In the present case, the State would have been allowed to continue the prosecution but the circumstances show that no efforts, what to say of sincere efforts, were made by the prosecution for making same progress in the trial of the cases. I would have given some time to prosecution to complete the trial but the circumstances show that this would be an empty formality because, there are no charges of the case being concluded when the record has to be traced out and witnesses have to be searched for. The accused in the case cannot be put to indefinite harassment. There has to be some reasonable limit and in the present case it can be said that the limit of reason has been crossed and the continuance of the proceedings cannot be said to be in the interests of justice. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and proceedings further in the trial of the case is disallowed. The proceedings before the trial court are quashed. The record of the case be sent immediately to the trial court.Petition allowed. *******