JUDGMENT This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. bas been filed for quashing the proceedings of Special case No.2 of 1978 pending in the Court of 3rd Special Judge, Calcutta. 2. The petitioner stands charged under Section 420 read with 120B I. P. C. for having cheated Superintendent workshop of Light Ships to the tune of Rs. 12,815.22 paise. 3. The two employees of the workship who happened to be a public servants namely S. C. Biswas and D. P. Chowdhury are charge-sheeted, along with present petitioner, under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, D. P. Chowdhury died before the charges were framed. Accused No.2, S. C. Biswas also died after the charges were framed. 4. The present petitioner who was supplier of articles alone survives for facing trial. The charge sheet against the accused persons was filed on 21.7.78 in the Court of Special Judge. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the prosecution on the grounds that (i) after the repeal of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Central Act No. 48 of 1988, the learned Special Judge has no jurisdiction to try the case punishable under Section 420 I. P. C.; (ii) that the trial draggs on for last 18 years and the belated trial is an infringement of life and liberty of the petitioner. Hence belated trial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Now I shall examine whether, after the repeal of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the trial Court has lost the jurisdiction to try this case. 6. Section 30 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads thus:- "(1) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952) are hereby repealed." "(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, but without prejudice to the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under or in pursuance of the acts so repealed shall, in so far as it is not Inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under, or in pursuance of the corresponding provision of this Act." 7. It is, therefore, clear that the repeal does not affect the provision of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897. 8. It is, therefore, clear that the repeal does not affect the provision of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897. 8. The relevant provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 9. The relevant provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act reads thus :- "Where in this act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment herewith made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not............(e) affect any investigation legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such privilege, obligation, liberty, penalty forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid. And any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted or continued or enforced, and in such penalty, forfeiture or punishment should be imposed as if the repealing act or regulation had not been passed." 10. Therefore, where the proceeding under the old Act had commenced, the same shall continue as if the Act of 1988 has not been passed. 11. It is not disputed that in the State of West Bengal, the trial of corruption cases was governed by the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and not Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952 along with the corruption cases, the West Bengal Act of 1949 also enumerated certain offences punishable under Indian Penal Code which shall be tried by Special Courts. The offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 I. P. C. also are some of the offences which are triable by the Special Courts established under West Bengal Amendment (Special Courts) Act of 1949, if committed by a person dealing with property belonging to Government as an agent. The petitioner being Supplier of Articles, did act as an agent. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases in support of his contention and urged that the prosecution cannot continue because the trial Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in :- (1) H. D. Burman v. C. B. I., 1995 Cal Cr. LR (Cal) 63 ; (2) Jatindra Nath Das v. C. B. I., 1996 Cal Cr. LR (Cal) 25. 13. LR (Cal) 63 ; (2) Jatindra Nath Das v. C. B. I., 1996 Cal Cr. LR (Cal) 25. 13. The ratio of these two cases have no application to the present circumstances because the charge sheets, in the aforesaid two cases, were filed long after the repeal of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 and before the State Government had appointed Special Judges under the Act of 1988, so it is not the case here. 14. It. therefore, follows chat the petitioner can be tried by the learned Special Judge because the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act of 1949 bas not been repealed and the learned trial Judge continues to be a Special Judge under the said Act. 15. Now, I come to question of delay, the learned Counsel for the petitioner bas filed a list of dates which go to show that the trial has been delayed mainly because of the latches of the prosecution. He has cited 1996 Cal Cr. LR (Cal) 25 ; (3) 1996 Cal Cr. LR (Cal) 140; (4) AIR 1986 Patna 324 ; (5) AIR 1986 Patna 384 wherein it was been laid down that inordinate delay in trial of cases is an infringement of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution However, the apex Court in case of (6) A. R. Antuley, AIR 1992 SC 1701 has laid down that simply because the trial is delayed, quashing of prosecution would not be justified in every case. It would be proper for the High Court to give a time frame within which the trial may conclude. I, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.