JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Mahendra Singh has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.8.94, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Drug in Criminal Revision No. 23/91. 2. Police Thana Khamariya, District Drug, after completing the investigation of the case registered at Crime No. 74/79, filed charge-sheet against non-petitioners 2 and 3 Shankar and Bhaiyalal, for the alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 109 of the IPC and Sections 79 (9-A) and 112, of the Motor Vehicles Act, on 26.10.79, in relation to an accident which had taken place on 30.8.79. 3. At the trial, after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, at the stage of examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr.P.C., he Trial Court was of the view that the material, available in the file, was sufficient for impleading petitioner Mahendra Singh as an accused, in the false for the offence under Sections 42/123 and 5/113-a, of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, vide order dated 28.12.90 directed issuance of summons against the petitioner. 4. Petitioner Mahendra Singh, being aggrieved of the above order, filed a revision petition before the Court of sessions. The Revisional Court, on reconsidering the rival submissions of the parties, affirmed the Trial Court's order. Hence, this petition before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. First, a recap of the step by step development of the case. The alleged accident is said to have taken place on 30.8.79. The charge-sheet against the accused persons, wherein petitioner Mahendra Singh was cited as a prosecution witness, was filed on 26.10.79. The Trial Court framed charges, against non-petitioners /accused persons 2 and 3, under Sections 279,337 and 338, of the IPC, on 22.9.80. The case was fixed for examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P.C., on 4.11.87. On this date, the Trial Court, for the first time, passed an order for impleading the petitioner as an accused in the case. The above order obviously was passed, in exercise of the, - powers, under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court, on 28.12.87, and submitted his reply, wherein among other grounds, objection in regard to the Limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C. was raised. The Trial Court thereafter passed the order dated 28.12.90. The above order obviously was passed, in exercise of the, - powers, under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court, on 28.12.87, and submitted his reply, wherein among other grounds, objection in regard to the Limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C. was raised. The Trial Court thereafter passed the order dated 28.12.90. The revision petition, filed by the petitioner, against the above order was finally decided by VIth A.S.J., Drug Camp Bemetra, on 25.8.94. The present petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court, on 5.10.94, and is being finally Decided by this Court in December, 1996. From the above narration, it is apparent that the case has already travelled a distance of 17 years from the date of the offence a and about 9 years from the first appearance of the petitioner, before the Trial Court. 6. Petitioner Mahendra Singh was sought to be made an accused, in exercise of the powers, under Section 319, Cr.P.C., for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 5/113-a and 42/120, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, which had met with an accident, in the year 1979. The above mentioned offences are punishable with fine only. The petitioner was shown to be an old man aged 73 years, at the time of the filing of this petition, in the year 1994. 7. A criminal case cannot be allowed to remain pending, against an accused, for an indefinite period. "Speedy Trial" has now been recognised as a Fundamental Right of the accused under Article 21, of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court, in a recent decision in the casa of Common Cause v. Union of India and Others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1819 , directed in para 2(d): "2(d). Where the cases pending in Criminal Courts under Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force are pending in connection with offences which are punishable with fine only and are not of recurring nature, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the Criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases." 8. Taking a cumulative view of the above mentioned broad features of the case and in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner, after 17 years of the alleged incident, is wholly unwarranted and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on this short ground alone. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not deem it necessary to examine the legality or otherwise of the order, passed by the Magistrate, impleading the petitioner as an co-accused in the case, under Section 319, Cr.P.C., and the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court affirming the Trial Court's order. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition, filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the proceedings pending against him in Criminal Case No. 612/82, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bomotra, District Drug, for the offence under Sections 5/ 113-a and 42,123, of the Motor Vehicles Act, are hereby quash ed, and petitioner Mahendra Singh is discharged of the above offences.Petition allowed. *******