RABIN BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision has been hit upon by the petitioner revisionist for quashing of the proceedings being Special Court Case No. 1 of 1988 arising out of G. R. Case No. 153/1982. ( 2 ) THE history of the litigation is briefly indicated:the petitioner while he was working as a Cashier at Banitabla Branch of the United Commercial Bank, shortly after 1 Oclock on 1/3/1982 received an urgent message from his home over telephone. Rabindra, left for home on that day after entrusting the key to the petitioner although he was not authorised to do so in view of the procedure of the Bank. Subsequently, it found its way in the key register on the strength of a letter received by the petitioner at 2. 30 p. m. on the same day. Rabindra could not leave any information to The Divisional Office, as the telephone of the. Bank went out of order. ( 3 ) THE Bank as usually was drawn to a close after days work and the Asstt. Cashier informed the petitioner his inability to attend the office on the next day which prevented him to make over the key to the Manager But is was detected on verification of the account of the Bank on the day following that there was a considerable Shortage of Rs. 1,30,630. 00 which triggered off the dispute. At an interval of couple of days, the information was lodged with the P. S. and action both criminal and civil was intiated. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was not favoured by the prosecution, despite request times without number, with the copy of the declaration dated 2/3/1982, letter dated 6/3/1982, communication note and the sundry creditors voucher where signature of the petitioner could be seen. 5. The disposal of the case, according to the petitioner, is long and over due. It has been protracted to its dangerous and embarrassing length. The inordinate delay has snatched away his fundamental right projecting on speedy trial, as ensured by article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the premise, this revision has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings pending disposal in the special Court. ( 5 ) THE point for decision in the revision is if the proceedings could be quashed for the delay occurred. In the premise, this revision has been preferred for quashing of the proceedings pending disposal in the special Court. ( 5 ) THE point for decision in the revision is if the proceedings could be quashed for the delay occurred. ( 6 ) THE profile of the case is that the revisionist has been made a scapegoat who is to undergo an untold sufferings in all these years among which dismissal from service is one. The above has cast a serious reflection on his mind and body for which he is very much apprehensive of a fair trial. The courts of our country, as contended by the learned Advocate, appearing for the revisionist, have often rendered weighty support to the aggrieved for preservation of the fundamental right of speedy trial, as assured by article 21 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, it is more than 12 years after the passing of the judgment in the case of Hussen Arakhatton1, that right to speedy trial is implicit in the broad sweep and content of article 2 ( 7 ) A legion of decisions has been made thereafter reaffirming the view taken by the Supreme Court. ( 8 ) IN making assessment of right to speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is uncontroverted that the historical background and targets of it have been reviewed time after time. The constitutional potentiality and object are equally explored to lay-down its object in order to ensure fundamental right as to speedy trial. ( 9 ) THE learned Advocate has drawn his inspiration from three other judicial decisions. They are:ranjit Kr. Pal v: The State, Mihir Kr. Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and S. G. Nain v. Union of India. In the aforesaid decisions, the common and vital factor decided by the Courts is that the long and delayed trial should not be allowed to offend the principle of article 21 of the Constitution and to make the accused a slave of adverse consequences. It generates mental agony for the accused to a higher degree and imperils his life and liberty. But we should not be oblivious of the fact that article 21 is sought to be utilised as the spring board by the accused to flee from justice in total disregard of the nature of offence committed by him which may have some reflection on the society at large. But we should not be oblivious of the fact that article 21 is sought to be utilised as the spring board by the accused to flee from justice in total disregard of the nature of offence committed by him which may have some reflection on the society at large. The clean acquittal or quashing the proceedings is not the panacea to heal up all sore in the litigation. ( 10 ) IT is patent, therefore, that the dominant object of article 21 will be frustrated to the core, if the accused is indulged in seeking protection under the cloak of delayed trial and agonies. ( 11 ) IN my view, the Court must take into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case to do a complete justice between the parties. Ipso facto-denial of right to speedy trial should not be readily inferred at the cost of the prosecution and total disregard of the circum stances. ( 12 ) OF late, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, is of utmost importance where the guidelines have been provided by the Supreme Court in a case where trial has been delayed. The court has come to a finding that right to speedy trial of an accused when infringed, the charges of 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 riot be in the interest of justice. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, it appears, prima facie, that a sum of Rs. 1,30,630/- and odd is found to be missing from the concerned Bank. It may be tentatively said that unauthorised making over of the key might be the reason of such shortage. The accused, if allowed to be let off under the protective umbrella of article 21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be seriously affected than served. In the light of the above, a direction to conclude the trial within a specific time will serve the interest of justice as it will strike the balance between the right to speedy trial of the accused and the right of the prosecution to prosecute the criminal proceedings. In the light of the above, a direction to conclude the trial within a specific time will serve the interest of justice as it will strike the balance between the right to speedy trial of the accused and the right of the prosecution to prosecute the criminal proceedings. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I cannot agree with the learned Advocate appearing for the revisionist that it a fit case for quashing merely on the ground of delay occurred to the disposal of the criminal proceedings. It is devoid of profile and the key in relation to article 21 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) HENCE, the criminal revision is dismissed with the direction that the trial is to be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of the record by the Trial Court. The party to the proceedings is to take steps in line with the direction given in the order. Criminal Revision dismissed.