JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending in the court of A.C.J.M. No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur, on the ground of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a division bench judgment in K.K. Tiwari v. S.P. CBI (1989 R.C.C. 249) , Badan Singh v. State (1990 R.C.C. 82), 1991 Cr. L.R. (Raj. 216) , and also Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan (1991 RCC 1510) . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan has submitted that criminal proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground of delay and he has placed reliance on V.K. Agrawal v. Basant Raj Bhagwanji Bhatia( AIR 1988 SC 1106 ) , Dewan Nobat Rai v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1989 SC 542 , Mangilal Vyas v. State of Rajasthan (1990 Cr. LR (SC) 326) and the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and others (1992) 1 Crimes 193 . 4. I have carefully gone through all these decisions. In the present case, the complainant was got lodged on 20.9.1975 by the Chief Manager, Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaipur, before the police, u/s 408, 420 IPC which was registered on 3.10.1975. The accused persons were arrested and bailed out on 17.10.1975. The matter related to the alleged embezzlement of about Rs. 6,000/- in June, 1972 and later on three separate first information reports were registered. A challan was filed on 25.2.1980 and since then, the case is pending before the trial court. Charges had been framed on 25.11.1981 and the case was fixed for recording evidence on behalf of the prosecution on 18.2.1982 but so far no evidence has been recorded on behalf of the prosecution. Because the original documents are not available with the prosecution. The court made several efforts to get the documents produced in the court but the prosecution every time wanted time to produce the document. Some of the documents were produced by the learned A.P.P. on 12.6.1984 and he sought further time to produce the remaining documents but those documents are still not available and have not been produced before the court. Some of the documents were produced by the learned A.P.P. on 12.6.1984 and he sought further time to produce the remaining documents but those documents are still not available and have not been produced before the court. One witness Chhutan Lal was present on several occasions in the court for recording his evidence but since the documents were not available, the statements of Chhutan Lal and other witnesses who were also present on some dates, could not he recorded. During the pendency of trial, Jodha Ram who is said to be the main accused has died. But the prosecution has failed to either produce the original documents relevant for the decision of the case or examine any witness so far. In these circumstances, this petition has been filed in this Court on 25.7.1990. This court, vide its order dated 17.7.1991 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to make a positive statement as to when the documents will be produced and when evidence will be examined. In spite of those directions, the learned Public Prosecutor is still unable to inform this Court as to whether the documents are available with the prosecution or as to when these documents could be made available and produced in the court or when the evidence can be examined with regard to referring of these documents. A division bench of this Court in K.K. Tewari's case (supra), after taking into consideration several judgments delivered till then, observed that undue delay in trial is violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the criminal proceedings could be quashed if the delay does not arise on account of the fault of the accused or the delay is occasioned by exceptional reasons. In that case, the prosecution was pending since 1976 and the criminal proceedings were quashed in the year 1989 as the accused was not responsible for the delay either in the investigation or in the trial nor the prosecution was able to show any exceptional reasons for the delay. Similarly, in the case of Badan Singh (supra) also this court quashed the criminal trial in 1989 when the same was pending since 1976. In Om Prakash's case (supra) also the offence had taken place in the year 1981, charges had been framed in 1985 and witnesses were not appearing till September, 1990 and therefore, the trial was quashed. Similarly, in the case of Badan Singh (supra) also this court quashed the criminal trial in 1989 when the same was pending since 1976. In Om Prakash's case (supra) also the offence had taken place in the year 1981, charges had been framed in 1985 and witnesses were not appearing till September, 1990 and therefore, the trial was quashed. In Rajesh Kumar Gupta's case (supra), the trial was pending for 13 years and therefore, the trial was quashed. Supreme Court in the case of V. K. Agrawal (supra) did not quash the proceedings on the ground of delay though it was for twenty years because it was a serious economic offence which undermined the entire economy of the nation and the delay had occasioned due to the working of the judicial system. In Dewan Nobat Rai's case (supra) also, the Supreme Court did not quash the proceedings on the ground of delay as it found that the prosecution was not responsible for the long delay and the delay has occasioned either on account of the accused or on account of the Presiding Officer of the court being on leave or transfer. Supreme Court again in the case of Mangilal (supra) upheld the judgment of this Court dismissing application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings, though the prosecution was pending since 1963 because in that case, effective proceedings had taken place in the trial court and the prosecution was not at all responsible or being blamed for any delaying tactics rather the accused was responsible for adopting delaying tactics. Supreme Court again in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) while not quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay, has observed that Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. It has further been observed in that case that right of speedy trial is the right of the accused which is also in public interest and it also serves social interest and this right of speedy trial all the stages namely stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. It has further been observed in that case that right of speedy trial is the right of the accused which is also in public interest and it also serves social interest and this right of speedy trial all the stages namely stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. While determining as to whether undue delay has occurred resulting in violation of right to speedy trial, one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances including the nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on. It has further been observed that inordinate long delay may be taken as a presumptory proof of burden. Prosecution should not be allowed to become persecution. It has then been observed that ordinarily speaking, where the court has come 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. In A.R. Antulay's case (supra) it was the stage when the prosecution had completed its evidence and the only thing remaining was the examination of the accused and the recording of defence evidence, the major part of the trial was over and therefore, their lordships did not think it just and proper to quash the charges or the criminal proceedings at that stage. 5. Keeping all these observations in mind and applying the same to the facts of the present case, the accused petitioner in the present case cannot be held guilty fore the delay in criminal trial. The prosecution has not been able to make the documents available in spite of trial court's order and even the direction of this Court. The incident is of 1972; FIR was lodged in 1975, the challan has been filed in 1980 and the charges have been framed in 1981 but so far not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The sword of damocles cannot be allowed to hang over the accused for an indefinite period. This undue long delay contravens the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial and will amount to abuse of the process of the court if the trial is allowed to continue and kept pending indefinitely. 6. This undue long delay contravens the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial and will amount to abuse of the process of the court if the trial is allowed to continue and kept pending indefinitely. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and criminal proceedings pending against petitioner Prabha Shankar s/o Shri Gauri Lalji, by caste Brahmin, Resident of Gheewalon Ka Rasta, Jaipur in Criminal case No. 49/1987 pending before the A.C.J.M. No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, u/s 420, 467, 468, 408, 120 B IPC are hereby quashed. 7. The record of the learned court below should be sent back. *******