ORDER P.N.S. Chouhan, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding in Criminal Case No. 2970/93, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni is sought to be quashed on ground of inordinate delay. 2. The said Criminal Case against the petitioner was instituted in some other Court and in the course of a decade it has been transferred to various courts. Each time the transferee Court gave it a different number. The case started with filing of challan under Sections 408, 409, 420, 109, Indian Penal Code and Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 3-12-1982. The Magistrate thought that the case was triable by the Court of Special Judge and accordingly it was transferred to Special Judge/Sessions Judge on 9-3-1983 but the said Court held, vide order, dated 6-5-1983 that the case was triable by Magistrate. Accordingly the accused were directed to appear before C.J.M. After 30 hearing, one of the accused Rajaram was discharged. After more than three years on 4-3-1986, the petitioner was charged under Sections 408, 409 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and case was posted for 'prosecution evidence on 20-5-1986 and for the first time after more than a year and a half, three witnesses were examined on 10-10-1987. It appears on 15-11-1988, another batch of three witnesses were present but for some reason, they were not examined. On 10-1-1989, the Court gave last opportunity to the prosecution to produce its remaining witnesses. The following date, i.e., on 16-2-1989 only one witness was present, who was given up by the prosecution. One would have expected that since the Court had observed on 10-1-1989 that the prosecution was being granted last opportunity, the case of prosecution would have closed on that date but the matter was adjourned for recording evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses on 5-3-1989 and Bhavani Shanker Sharma, who was present, was examined. Again the prosecution was granted time to produce its remaining witnesses. It appears Bhavani Shanker Sharma was examined again on 16-9-1989 and finally his evidence was completed on 11-12-1990 and then on 21-12-1990 the case was transferred by C.J.M. to Shri B. Kumar, J.M.F.C. Unmindfully this case was adjourned from time to time without any substantial progress and we find that the same is still pending. 3. It appears Bhavani Shanker Sharma was examined again on 16-9-1989 and finally his evidence was completed on 11-12-1990 and then on 21-12-1990 the case was transferred by C.J.M. to Shri B. Kumar, J.M.F.C. Unmindfully this case was adjourned from time to time without any substantial progress and we find that the same is still pending. 3. Reliance has been placed on Bell v. Director of Public Prosecution of Jamaica and Anr., (1985)(2) All. E.R. 585, AIR 1979 SC 1369 , AIR 1979 SC 1377 , AIR 1981 SC 939 , in support of the contention that inordinate delay in criminal trial is violative of the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. On this basis, the said criminal trial is sought to be quashed under the inherent powers of this Court. 4. It cannot be doubted that a citizen of this republic is entitled under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to a fair and speedy trial. Unfortunately though India has made spectacular progress in some of the fields of our national life the goal of speedy trial in Criminal Cases, one of the basics of good governance, has proved elusive. As a result, 'laws delay' of which Hamlet grudged some 400 years ago has not only persisted but assumed oppressive proportions of which the present case can be cited as an example. Quashing the proceeding will no doubt give immediate relief to the petitioner but in the larger public interest this negative approach may be eschewed. It has to be remembered that under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, this Court exercises plenary powers of superintendence over its Subordinate Courts. As put by the Supreme Court in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. etc. v. L. V.A. Dikshitulu and Ors. etc., AIR 1979 SC 193 : "The control over the subordinate judiciary vested in the High Court under Article 235 is exclusive in nature, comprehensive in extent and effective in operation." This case raised the awkward question, is the control really effective ? Thus viewed, this Court shares to a large extent the accountability in this context as ensuring timely disposal of cases is the most important aspect of superintendence. It is, therefore, necessary that this occasion is seized as an opportunity for a constructive remedial approach. 5. Thus viewed, this Court shares to a large extent the accountability in this context as ensuring timely disposal of cases is the most important aspect of superintendence. It is, therefore, necessary that this occasion is seized as an opportunity for a constructive remedial approach. 5. In result, the petition in disposed of thus : It is hereby ordered that (i) The trial Court should close the prosecution case on the next date of hearing. (ii) Examination of accused under Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code be concluded within 3 days thereafter. (iii) If the defence wants to adduce evidence not more than a month's time be allowed for this purpose and thereafter within 7 days and if the defence does not want to adduce evidence within 7 days from the examination of accused, judgment should be pronounced after hearing parties' arguments within 3 days from the date of closure of defence. (iv) After, disposal of the case its record be critically examined by a responsible officer of the Registry to fix up responsibility for lax- handling of the case by those who presided over this Court during the period of its pendency for such action at the administrative level as be deemed fit.