JUDGMENT 1. - These three miscellaneous petitions under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner was a Patwari of Halka Anthara and Sakeli in the services of the Government of Rajasthan. He has retired on 31.12.92. With regard to the period on and from 19.12.72 to 29.3.75 (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1304/92); 28.3.74 to 29.7.74 (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1308/92) and 8.1.73 to 25.6.73 (in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1310/92) the petitioner who was working as a Patwari was alleged to have committed the offences of embezzlement for which he was sought to be prosecuted. The written reports were lodged against him on 31.8.75 by Tehsildar, Bundi before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bundi, that he had recovered the excess money from the cultivate others deceitfully and had misappropriated the same by not depositing it in the Government account and by not making any entry in the record. On the basis of these reports, a case under Section 409, Indian Penal Code was registered and after the investigation the charge sheets were filed against the petitioner under Section 409, 468, 477-A Indian Penal Code on 17.2.79 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has been argued by Shri Mehrish that the charges were framed in this case on 9.5.84, and, thereafter, no effective proceedings have been held barring the examination of few witnesses. 3. In the criminal case out of which the Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1310/92 arises, 30 witnesses are yet to be examined and the last witness in this case was examined on 15.2.91. 4. In the criminal case out of which the S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1304/92 arises, only 3 out of 52 witnesses have been examined and the last witness in this case was examined on 15.2.91. 5. In the criminal case out of which the S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1308/92 arises the first witness was examined on 16.8.85 and, thereafter, only one witness was examined on 15.2.91 whereas, there are 16 witnesses in all. 6. Shri Mehrish submits that there are no proceedings after 15.2.91. 7. The incident relates to the period between the year 1972 to 1975 for which the written report was lodged in the year 1975. The challans were filed in the year 1979. 6. Shri Mehrish submits that there are no proceedings after 15.2.91. 7. The incident relates to the period between the year 1972 to 1975 for which the written report was lodged in the year 1975. The challans were filed in the year 1979. The charges were framed in the year 1984 and now we are in the year 1993 and thus, the matters have been going on against the petitioner for last about 20 years and the petitioner has faced the prosecution and suffered the agony of the trial for all these years and he has retired from the Government Service. 8. Shri Mehrish has also submitted that with such a long lapse of time the relevant evidence has withered away and it will not be possible for the petitioner to have any reasonable opportunity of leading defence evidence in an effective manner. 9. I have heard Shri Mehrish and have gone through the copies of the order sheets which have been produced before me. The speedy trial is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of speedy trial has been judicially recognised under Article 21 in several cases. Shri Mehrish has placed reliance on 1992(2) Western Law Cases (Rajasthan) p. 77 Chote Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan in which the various judicial pronouncements including the several decisions of the Patna High Court have been considered on the question of the speedy trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner has remained subjected to the long inning of litigation and on the basis of the contents of the various order sheets, it cant be said that the petitioner has been responsible for prolonging the trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has already suffered the agony of the trial for a considerable long time and now after a period of 20 years no useful purpose will be served by allowing these trials to continue in which 14 to 49 witnesses are yet to be examined. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Regular Cases (i) No. 172/79 relating to FIR case Ilzam No. 135/75 of Police Station Keshoraipatan Distt. Bundi under Sections 409, 467, 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi under challenge in Cr. Misc. 10. Accordingly, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Regular Cases (i) No. 172/79 relating to FIR case Ilzam No. 135/75 of Police Station Keshoraipatan Distt. Bundi under Sections 409, 467, 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi under challenge in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1304/92; (ii) No. 43/83 relating to FIR case Ilzam No. 135/75 of Police Station Keshoraipatan Distt. Bundi under Section 409, 467, 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi under challenge in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1308/92; (iii) No. 42/83 relating to FIR case Ilzam No. 135/75 of Police Station Keshoraipatan Distt. Bundi under Section 409, 467, 420 and 471 Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi under challenge in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1310/92 are hereby quashed. 11. No proceedings will now pend against the petitioner in any of these three matters. The petitioner need not to surrender to his bail bonds, if any. 12. All these three S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 1304/92, 1308/92 and 1310/92 under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code are allowed as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******