JUDGMENT B.P. Singh & G. C. Bharuka, JJ. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Bihar State Electricity Board. It appears that he had made a demand of illegal gratification from the informant Sarjug Gorai with a view to favour him in the discharge of his official duty. It appears that the informant was harassed on account of the fact that his meter was defective and he was being compelled to pay higher charge. 2. It appears that on the complaint of the informant a trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended while accepting a sum of Rs.140/- from the informant by way of illegal gratification. A first information report was recorded on 3.11.1978 under section 161 I.P.C. After a lapse of almost 6 1/2 years cognizance was taken on 26.6.1985 of offences under section 161 I.P.C. as also under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges were framed on 17.2.1986 and five witnesses were examined by the time the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the prosecution on the ground of delay. The instant writ application was tiled on 15.1.1987 and was admitted for hearing on 27.1.1987. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in relation to a case of the year 1978, cognizance was taken in the year 1985 and till January, 1987 the trial had not concluded. The petitioner is said to have accepted a sum of Rs. 140/- by way of illegal gratification. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of. the State explaining the delay. The case was investigated by the Vigilance Department. Counsel for the Vigilance Department submitted that there was considerable delay in obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner. We fail to understand how the matter could be delayed to this extent in a case where a trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended red handed. Thereafter only the formality of preparing Panchnama etc. remained to be done, which must be done on the same day. We can therefore, find no reason for the investigation to linger on for so long. So far the grant of sanction is concerned, we have no material before us to establish that there was any good reason for delay in grant of sanction of almost 6 1/2 years. remained to be done, which must be done on the same day. We can therefore, find no reason for the investigation to linger on for so long. So far the grant of sanction is concerned, we have no material before us to establish that there was any good reason for delay in grant of sanction of almost 6 1/2 years. We fail to understand what difficulties the sanctioning authority could have in a case of the present nature where the petitioner is said to have been apprehended red handed in presence of witnesses. But for the oral submissions, there IS no material .on this aspect of the matter, since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State explaining the delay. For accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 140/- the petitioner has been harassed since November, 1978. The petitioner moved this Court in January, 1987, which means that the trial could not be concluded in 8 years. The unexplained delay in concluding of the trial offends the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, quash the criminal prosecution pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance Police Station, Patna in Vigilance Police Station Case No. 65(11)78 being Special Case No.35 of 1985. 5. We make it clear that we have quashed the prosecution only on the ground of delay in concluding the trial. This will not affect in any manner whatsoever any departmental proceeding which may be contemplated, pending, or concluded against the petitioner. 6. This writ application is allowed.