Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. None appears for the petitioners, On being requested by this Court, Mr. P. D. Agrawal, the learned A. P. P. has submitted that the State of Bihar preferred appeal before the Honble Supreme Court against the Full Bench judgment of this Court as reported in 1986 BBCJ, page-529, corresponding to 1986 PLJR, 767 and the matter was referred to Constitution Bench and ultimately it was decided by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India alongwith Abdul Rahman Antuleys case, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1801 . The Apex Court with consonance of the previous judgment including that of Hussain Ara Khatoons judgment held that the concept of speedy trial flows from the Article 21 of the Constitution of India but time limit for criminal proceedings cannot be drawn for category or classes of criminal cases but each case should be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been held that quashing of charges is not the only course open to Court to consider infringement of principle of speedy trial. Guidelines have been given in the following manner ; "(1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt of innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. (2) Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view. (3) The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are : (a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. That is how this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view. (3) The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are : (a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction ; (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal ; and (c) undue delay may well result in pairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of winesses or otherwise." 2. The present case has a very chequered history as is revealed from the writ petition itself. Although, none has come forward to support the writ petition for and on behalf of the petitioners but the contents of the petition have much force. 3. The petitioners were serving in the Motor Vehicle Taxation Department and there were some embezzlement found at the later stage when the petitioners had already been relieved from that Department. In the enquiry and inspection doubts/suspicion were created to the effect that some defalcation must have been committed in the Motor Vehicle section. Accordingly informations were given to the Assistant Inspector General of Police and the State Transport Commissianer for an audit of the Section. Before the audit was completed, it is alleged that the Superintendent of Police, Shri G. Narain lodged a written report before the officer-in-charge, Kotwali Police Station and on the basis of that report, Kotwali PS Case No. 65(8)65 against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and others were registered, corresponding to Special Case No. 5 of 1974 under Sections 409/420/466/467/471/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(ii) read with Section 5(i)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. As per the first information report, the allegation against the petitioners were that in conspiracy with other accused persons they had committed the offences by not keeping in safe custody of the Adhesive Stamps and by making wrong entries in the Receipt and Taxation Registers and embezzlement of money was made. Charge-sheet was submitted on 22-11-1974 after about nine years and then mechanically cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and proceded for trial. Charge-sheet was submitted on 22-11-1974 after about nine years and then mechanically cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and proceded for trial. But, although the trial begun in the year 1975 yet the same could not be proceeded further for the non-availability of the Public Prosecutor or for some other reasons of the State agency in proceeding with the case and no order being made by the judge concerned in the case. 4. In the year 1986, one of the accused person, Shri Baleshwar Prasad Verma, being aggrieved by the delay in disposal of the case filed Cr. Misc. Case No 573 of 1986(R), which was finally disposed of by a Single Bench on 15-9-1986, whereby the criminal prosecution in Kotwali P. S. Case No. 7(12) 65 against the said Shri Baleshwar Prasad Verma was quashed. It is further stated that on search of the house of petitioner No. 3, nothing was recovered and Nil report was prepared. The suspension order passed against the petitioner on 15-10-1963 was withdrawn by 14-12-1963 by the Department itself. The petitioner No. 1 was only allotted duty in respect of correspondence, receipt and despatch and Learners Driving Licence and he was not connected with the allegations made against the other accused persons. The petitioner No. 2 was alleged to be mainly working in preparing tax token and filling in taxation register by the order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned. The proceeding for sanction of the prosecution was kept in abeyance at the Government level from 1972-74. When these petitioners came up before this Court filing this Criminal Writ on 11-12-1986 long 21 years had passed without any progress in the trial of the case. 5. These points were once agitated before this Court and this Court gave a direction to expedite the trial and dispose of the same within four months, but that direction was also not complied with. The petitioners had also filed Cr. Misc. No. 3817 of 1986 (R) and at the admission stage the same was disposed of with the observations that in the nature of the grievance made by the petitioner, they might have preferred a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by order dated 11-11-1986. After the disposal of the Criminal Misc. Misc. No. 3817 of 1986 (R) and at the admission stage the same was disposed of with the observations that in the nature of the grievance made by the petitioner, they might have preferred a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by order dated 11-11-1986. After the disposal of the Criminal Misc. application, the petitioners have come up before this Court for quashing of entire criminal proceedings in Kotwali PS Case No. 65 (8)-65, corresponding to Special Case No. 5/74 pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi. 6. In a supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have mentioned that one of the co-accused in the similar special case No. 4/74, in the previously mentioned case i.e., Cr. Misc. Case No. 573/86 (R), arisen out of the same chain of circumstances of the present case agitated the similar points and quashing was allowed by an order dated 15-9-1986. The State of Bihar then filed a review application against the order dated 15-9-1986 for recealling of the order but the same was disallowed, by order dated 1841-1986 by a Single Bench of this Court. Another accused in that Special Case No. 4 of 1974 had also filed Cr. W. J. C No. 217/86(R), which was heard by a Division Beach of this Court and by order dated 10-12-1985, the entire criminal proceeding were quashed in respect of the petitioner, namely, Shyamasunder Mukherjee and another accused. 7. The petitioners in the present case also stand on the same footing. For long 21 years they had not been tried and they were appearing before the court with anxiety for those years without any remedy whatsoever. From the side of the State, no attempts were made to expedite the trial even after directions from this High Court. Practically by this time, long 30 years have passed of lodging of the information against the petitioners, proceedings in the criminal case was stayed by this Court vide order dated 22-12-1986 and then the case remained pending at the admission stage to the effect that the decision of this Court as reported in 1986 BBCJ 529 was challenged before the Honble Supreme Court and then the same was pending before that Court. That case has been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court in the year 1992 as per mentioned above. That case has been finally disposed of by the Supreme Court in the year 1992 as per mentioned above. On principle enunciated by the Supreme Court on speedy trial, the present case totally fits in with the same. This case is an example how the accused person in a case are being dealt with by the State without going for a trial for long 21 years. 8. I find much force in this writ petition. The entire criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 5/74 pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi arising out of Kotwali PS Case No. 65 (8)-65 against the abovementioned three petitioners are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.