Judgment Om Prakash, J. 1. This is an application under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by one of the accused in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 31 dated 10-9-1976 under sections 120B, 409, 406, 467 and 420 I.P.C. pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, for restraining the respondents from proceeding with such case. 2. A F.I.R. was lodged by T. Nand Kumar, Liquidator, Patna-Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, against the petitioner and one M.A. Haidri, Manager of the Bank, alleging that the petitioner & the Bank Manager entered into a criminal conspiracy. On 25-6-1973, Rs. 21,500.00 were given to the petitioner by the Patna Urban Co-operative Bank as loan without any application for loan or execution of any agreement or pledging of goods and without any sanction by the loan Sub-Committee or the Board of Directors. Charge-sheet has been submitted but trial has not yet been concluded. The petitioner has claimed that he never absconded but still due to the callous attitude of the prosecution the case has not yet been concluded. He has alleged that such long delay in conclusion of his trial has infringed and violated his fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed for quashing the proceedings before the court below submitting that such a long delay in disposal of his case has infringed and violated petitioners fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India though he was never at fault. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that it is a case in which the Bank Authorities have conspired with different persons to Swindle Banks money which has led the Bank into liquidation. 5. The facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the offences involved are very much relevant for determination of the question whether there has been a denial of fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused guaranteed to him under article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a case like the one in hand, the Bank Authorities have conspired with other persons, as per F.I.R., to swindle away Banks money having no regard to the observances of rules and formalities to be complied with. In such cases, investigation is a complicated affair. In a case like the one in hand, the Bank Authorities have conspired with other persons, as per F.I.R., to swindle away Banks money having no regard to the observances of rules and formalities to be complied with. In such cases, investigation is a complicated affair. The Investigating Officer has to obtain approach to different documents in possession of different persons or institution to examine them carefully and to record statement of concerned persons whose number is usually large, at different places. It takes much time. It is unlike in a case of murder wherein the Investigating Officer may promptly visit the place of occurrence, inspect it, hold inquest and record the statement of witnesses available there or at nearby places, complete the investigation and submit the chargesheet. Besides, if in a case where the Bank Authorities have conspired with others to swindle Banks money, the proceedings in the court below are quashed on account of delay, it would cause injustice. 6. In the case of A.R. Antulay V/s. R.S. Nayak, while dealing with a case wherein proceedings were sought to be quashed on account of long delay in conclusion of the trial, the Supreme Court has held that while determining whether undue delay has occurred (resulting in violation of Right to Speedy Trial) one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work-load of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so onwhat is caned, the systemic delay. It is true that it is the obligation of the State of ensure a speedy trial and State includes judiciary as well, but a realistic an practical approach should be adopted in such matters instead of a pedantic one. 7. The Supreme Court relied upon the following observations of White, J. in U.S.V. Ewell (15 Lawyers Edn. 2nd 627). "the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial is necessarily relative, is consistent with delays, and has orderly expedition, rather than mere speed, as its essential ingredients; and whether delay in completing a prosecution amounts to an unconstitutional deprivation of rights depends upon all the circumstances." 8. The Apex Court further held that ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors balancing test or balancing process and determine in each whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. The Apex Court further held that ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors balancing test or balancing process and determine in each whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed; the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only course open. The nature of the offence and other circumstances in a given case may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order-including an order to conclude the trial within a fixed time where the trial is not concluded or reducing the sentence where the trial has concluded as may be deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be a qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden or proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duly of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of U.S.A. too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time limit inspite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do the courts think that not fixing any such outer limit in effectuates the guarantee of Right of Speedy trial. An objection based on denial of Right to Speedy trial and for relief on that account, should first be addressed to the High Conn. Even if the High Court entertains such a plea, ordinarily it should not stay the proceedings, except in a case of grave and exceptional nature, Such proceedings in High Court must, however, be disposed of on a priority basis. 9. Even if the High Court entertains such a plea, ordinarily it should not stay the proceedings, except in a case of grave and exceptional nature, Such proceedings in High Court must, however, be disposed of on a priority basis. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offences involved, I am of the opinion that it cannot reasonably and justifiably be held that petitioners fundamental right to speedy public trial has been denied, violated or infringed, and as such proceedings before the court below cannot reasonably or legally be quashed. But at the same time it is necessary that petitioners trial is concluded as speedily as possible in accordance with law. The court below is, therefore, directed to hear this case speedily and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, giving preference to the hearing of his case, preferably on day to day basis as far as practicable, over the cases in which accused are on bail and which are comparatively new, without granting routine or easy adjournment taking all possible measures in accordance with law to secure the attendance of witnesses and documents instead of granting frequent and easy adjournments to the prosecution for their production. 10. In the result, the writ application is dismissed with the above direction to be complied with strictly.