JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner has prayed for a direction to dispose of Jail Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1994 pending before this Court early. According to him, Article 21 of the Constitution of India creates a right in the accused to be tried expeditiously, and a direction for early disposal of the aforesaid Jail Criminal Appeal admitted by this Court on 26-8-1994 is warranted. Petitioner has filed the aforesaid Jail Criminal Appeal challenging Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Koraput, Jeypore in SC 94 of 1994. Dr. V. Prithvi Raj, Advocate has been engaged by Orissa High Court Legal Aid Committee to conduct the aforesaid appeal. Petitioner has alternatively prayed that in case early disposal of appeal is not practicable, he should be re eased on bail. Learned counsel for State while not disputing that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses a speedy trial, submits that a direction as prayed for cannot be given in a writ application. 2. As observed by apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc. fair, just and reasonable procedure implict in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Speedy trial is also in the public interest. It is in the interest of all concerned that guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances, and right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the constitution encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, enquiry, trial appeal, revision and retrial. So far as accused is concerned, right to speedy trial imports that period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. Put differently, accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction. The worry, anxiety, expenses and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from unduly prolonged investigation, enquiry or trial should be minimal. Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. All criminal prosecutions cause some degree of concern and hardship to the accused, but such side-effects should be kept to a minimum and the trial brought to an end within a reasonable time. All criminal prosecutions cause some degree of concern and hardship to the accused, but such side-effects should be kept to a minimum and the trial brought to an end within a reasonable time. What is meant by "a reasonable time" would vary from case to case and would depend on the circumstances and local conditions. The Court has to strike a balance between having an effective system of administration of justice and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution. In carrying out such an exercise. Court would consider not only period of delay but the reasons therefor. It is not possible in the very nature of things and present day circumstances to draw a time-limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed to go. Wherever a complaint of infringement of right to speedy trial is made, the Court has to consider all the circumstances of the case and arrive at a decision whether in fact the proceedings have been pending for an unjustifiably long period. In Mungroo v. R. (1992) LRC 591 : (1991) 1 WIR 1351, Lord Templeman expressed the following view: "Problems which are considered to be complex in one administration may be dealt with more expeditiously and with greater certainty and understanding in another. At the same time the constitutional rights of the individual must not be placed at the mercy of insufficiency. The expressed constitutional right contained in Section 10 to a hearing of a criminal case within a reasonable time injects the need for urgency and efficiency into the prosecution of offenders and demands the provision of adequate resources for the administration of justice but in determining whether the constitutional rights of an individual have been infringed, the Courts must have regard to the constraints imposed by harsh economic reality and local conditions." Even a small young country like Kiribati. High Court thereof expressed similar sentiments in Republic of Kiribati v. Teoiki and Anr. (1993) 3 LRC 385. 3. Article 21 of the Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or property except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. Right to a speed/ trial is not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution as a right in India but fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates such right in the accused. Right to a speed/ trial is not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution as a right in India but fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates such right in the accused. As observed by apex Court in A. R. Antulay's case (supra), speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice, and there can be no doubt that delay in trial itself constitutes denial of justice. It cannot however, be lost sight of that it is usually the accused who is interested in delaying the proceedings as it often pointed out "delay is a known defence tactic." But such prosecution should be allowed to become persecution. Apex Court refused to fix any time-limit for trial of offence and observed that it is neither advisable nor practicable any such rule a is bound to be a qualified one. While determining whether undue delay has occurred (resulting in violation of Right to Speedy Trial) one must have regard to all the attendant circumstances, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the work load of the Court concerned, prevailing local conditions and so on --what is called, the systemic delays. Facts situation has not been detailed in the writ application to gauze whether there has been unusual delay. Additionally petitioner has to overcome hurdle as to the maintainability of the writ application. A writ cannot be issued by a Division Bench to either a Single Bench or a Division Bench (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ). A writ cannot be issued from a Bench of the High Court to another Bench or to a Single Judge of the same Court. Petitioner can if so advised make appropriate application (in the Jail Criminal Appeal) for early hearing of the case. In a writ application prayer for bail cannot be granted. If so advised, petitioner may file an appropriate application in Jail Criminal Appeal itself for such purpose. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. P.C. Naik, J. - I concur with the view expressed by learned Brother Pasayat J., but would like to briefly deal with complaint of the petitioner that his right to speedy trial has been infringed because of delay in disposal of his case. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. P.C. Naik, J. - I concur with the view expressed by learned Brother Pasayat J., but would like to briefly deal with complaint of the petitioner that his right to speedy trial has been infringed because of delay in disposal of his case. It cannot be denied that a right to speedy trial forms part of the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and whenever a right to speedy trial is infringed, the blame is placed at the door-step of the Court. Aggrieved persons seem to forget that it is not the Courts but the Government which is to be blamed for delay In completion of trials. Though crimes and cases have increased manyfold, the Government is not in a position to make provision for setting up of adequate number of Court and appointment of requisite number of Judges to cope up with the alarmingly high number of cases. This aspect is overlooked by all including the Government. Trial is protracted is a fact, but no one seems to appreciate the reason behind it. For the delay in disposal of cases, both prosecution and defence are responsible. In many cases it has been noticed that accused/convicts are not being produced before the Courts on the dates fixed. The usual excuse offered is that the police personnel are busy with Saw and order problem or VIP duty. We have also come across cases where the accused/convicts were not produced for want of conveyance. More often, prosecution witnesses do not appear on the date fixed for trial. Even, the Investigating Officer and Medical Officer do not care to appear on the dates fixed leading to many adjournments. Defence witnesses do not appear promptly and to all this, the Court remains as a mute spectator. It may not want to adjourn the case, but is compelled to do so for the reason of being misunderstood. For the same cause, it also cannot dispense with prosecution witnesses and since adjournments are granted to the prosecution, similar opportunity is granted to the defence also. In result, trial is protracted. For a speedy trial, it is the duty of the State, i. e. the prosecution to act promptly and not to adopt an indifferent attitude affecting progress of trial. In result, trial is protracted. For a speedy trial, it is the duty of the State, i. e. the prosecution to act promptly and not to adopt an indifferent attitude affecting progress of trial. In the event the Investigating Officer and/or medical officer do not appear, the authorities will be justified in taking appropriate action against them. There is no reason why the Investigating Officer and/or Medical Officer cannot appear in Court on the fixed date provided there is some valid and genuine ground. If care is taken by the prosecution and the defence co-operates, there is no reason why the trial cannot be completed within a reasonable period. The expenditure for establishment of adequate number of Courts and appointment of requisite number of Judges in order to cope with the day-to-day alarmingly rising number of cases coming before the Courts, is to be met from the State Exchequer. To this, the State seems to be indifferent. Therefore, in such circumstances, looking forward to a speedy trial or quick disposal of cases appears to be a mere pious wish, through it is desirable. In our State there were thirteen districts which have now been increased to thirty. Though bureaucrats have bean posted more or less in all the thirty districts, thirteen District Judges are looking after the working of thirty districts. It is also seen that funds are not made available to the Judiciary with the same liberal attitude as is available to the bureaucrats and administrative authorities and the result, therefore, is that Courts do not have sufficient staff to cope with the manyfold increased workload. From the reports received by us from time to time, we find that in many Courts adequate funds are not available, even stationery, furniture, books and other necessary requirements. And above all, administration of justice is a non-planned expenditure. In this background, is it fair to blame only the Courts for delay in disposal of cases? I think not.