USHA MEHRA, J. ( 1 ) DELAY, it is well known is fatal to criminal investigation, as well as to the trial. it gets worst if it can be altriblitecl to lathargic and lackadaisical maner of investigalion. if prolongs the agony of the person under investigation. In such a situation, the alleged accused lives every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress. There is no denying the fact that delayed investigation and delayed institution, of charge sheet thereafter delayed trial are the factors which cause grave prejudice and disadvantage to the accused. It has been abhored by the Apex Court i. n umpteen of cases. The Courts arc protector of right and personal liberty of the citizen. In such circumstances, Court has to step in and if the facts permits, resort to drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings. It is in this backdrop that we have to examine the facts of this case. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined service in MCD as Laboratory Assistant in 1952 in pay-scale of Rs. 60 per month. He was promoted as Public Analyst in the said Department in 1978. A preliminary enquiry No. 8 of 1978 was registered against the petitioner in Anli Corruption Branch, Delhi Administration, regarding possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Enquiry revealed that he acquired assets consisting of moveable and immoveable property either in his own name or in the name of his family members during the period from 9th December, 1952 to 31st December, 1977. This prelimnary enquiry revealed that petitioner had acquired assets worth Rs. 2,2. 5,691. 41 paise during the penod from 1-1-68 to 31-12-77 i. e. the check date fixed by he Department. While during this period of check i. e. 1-1-68 to 31-12-77 he could have saved only Rs. 72,151. 23 Paise. Thus. the material collected showed that the petitioner was possessed of assets to the tune of Rs. 1,53,540. 18 paise disproportionate to his known source of income. On the basis of this material, the case was ordered to be registered and Shri Prithvi Raj Bhatia, Inspector, Anli Corruption Branch was directed to investigate the case. Shri Prithvi Rnj Bhatia after investigation submitted a report taking into consideration all the movenble and immovebale assets, alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner. After verificaion he concluded that dis-proportionate assets of the petitioner were only to the tune of Rs. Shri Prithvi Rnj Bhatia after investigation submitted a report taking into consideration all the movenble and immovebale assets, alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner. After verificaion he concluded that dis-proportionate assets of the petitioner were only to the tune of Rs. 2,553. 60 paise. On these facts saction for prosecution was acelined by the Director of Prevention of Food Adulteration, on 5th September, 1986 (7 ). After a considerable time, the Department on the basis of the same material got the case re-examined. After reapprising the same material but adding HUF rental income as well as sale proceeds of silver coins belonging to his mother by his mother and gold ornaments of wife by his wife and treating this to be the income of the petitioner, the Authority concluded that the petitioner had amassed wealth weath Rs. 74,444 dis- proportionate to his known, source of income. Second time, sanction was accorded by the Director, PFA on 3rd February, 1982. On receipt of sanction, complaint was filed in Court in 1987. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved against the filing of this complaint on various counts and one amongst those is alleged investigation and delayed trial. Till date copies of the documents filed by the State have not been supplied to him even though challan was filed in 1987. Feeling aggrieved because of the non-supply of these documents for number of years, he preferred this petition in August, 1990. There was no stay operating against the respondent still the Trial Court did not direct the respondent to supply the documents. It has taken almost nine years and yet charge has not been framed. A statutory duty is cast upon the State as well as on the Court to ensure that all documents filed with the challan or complaint are supplied to the accused. But in this case in spite of repeated demand made by the petitioner, documents have not been supplied to him. Because of delay on account of repeated investigation and delay of proceedings in Court, the petitioner has suffered. His defence witnesses who were to prove his case namely his mother who sold her silver coins to the tune of Rs. 20,000 which amount has been added as petitioner s income has since died on l1th August, 1989. Because of delay on account of repeated investigation and delay of proceedings in Court, the petitioner has suffered. His defence witnesses who were to prove his case namely his mother who sold her silver coins to the tune of Rs. 20,000 which amount has been added as petitioner s income has since died on l1th August, 1989. Similarly his father-in-law Shri Ram Lal who was to prove that he sifted gold ornaments to petitioner s wife which his wife sold and which income has been added as that of the petitioner also died on 5th October. 1982. Other material witnesses who were to prove his case have either died or would not be available in due course of lime. ( 4 ) MR. P. R. Thakur appealing for the petitioner contended that petitioner is running 69 years of his life. Who knows what will happen to him tommorrow ? Will he be available to face the trial looking at the pace in which this case has prolonged. Proseciitioti has cited as many as 61 witnesses. It will take a decade to load evidence. His material witnesses have already died and some more may not survive that long. Can the petitioner be made to suffer because of this lanckadaisical and letharsical invcstigation and prlongeed trial. He has already sufferd enough trauma. he has lived cvery moment under extreme emotional and mental stress, Beside the emotional aspect, Mr -. P. R. thakur contended that there is legal aspect to this case. The Sanctioning Authority on the basis ol the material on record having declined sanction to prosecute the petitioner was not justified to accord the same. The sanction having once declined on. the material available on record and there being no fresh material reappraisal was bad in law. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision in the cases of (1) Ramanand Chaudhary V. State of Bihar and Ors. 1994 Cri. L. L 1221 and (2) Vijai Bahadur V. State of U. P. and Ors. 1988 Allahabad Weekly Cases 1289. ( 5 ) THE order refusing the sanction having been passed on entire material available on record and the appointing authority having been satisfied that no prima case was made out, what made him to change his view, particularly when no fresh material was placed on record, can be nothing but erroneous impression. 1988 Allahabad Weekly Cases 1289. ( 5 ) THE order refusing the sanction having been passed on entire material available on record and the appointing authority having been satisfied that no prima case was made out, what made him to change his view, particularly when no fresh material was placed on record, can be nothing but erroneous impression. Such review or going back on earlier order is fraught with danger. It is destructive of certainty and finality. It may leave room open for influence and pressure. Since the earlier order was passed in this case after careful consideration of material on record, no fresh material was collected by new new Investigating Officer as is apparent from his report. He also relied on the material collected by Mr. Prithvi Raj Bhatia but added that income to be that of the petitioner which Mr. Bhafia after verification held not to be the individual income of the petitioner, By doing so he reappraised the material without any basis. In this view of the matter, I am in agreement with the contention of Mr. P. R. Thakur that the Sanctioning Authority was precluded from recalling the earlier order of declining the sanction and or passing fresh order on the same material based on erroneous impression. ( 6 ) SO fas as the delay aspect of the case is concerned, I have already indicated the facts that the investigation started in 1977. Preliminary investigation started in earlier 1978 to ascertain the assets disproportionate to the income source of income of the petitioner. The check period was fixed from 1-1-68 to 31-12-77, This investigation went on for nearly nine years. It was only in 1986 that the sanction was accorded and in 1987 challan was filed in the Court. Thus it took almost 10 years to thecase to reach this Court. From 1987 till date the charge has not been framed. Mr. P. R. Thakur stated that what to talk of charge it is case where even till date all documents have not been supplied and that too for no fault of the petitioner. Petitioner in the meantime got retired from service on 3!st December. 1986. The challan was filed subsequent thereto. All his dues have been withheld because of this criminal case. Petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get justice. He filed this petition because he wanted the documents so that. Petitioner in the meantime got retired from service on 3!st December. 1986. The challan was filed subsequent thereto. All his dues have been withheld because of this criminal case. Petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get justice. He filed this petition because he wanted the documents so that. case could proceed expeditiously. But alas knocking the door of this Court also did not help him. Unfortunafe for him, in this Court also it has taken six years to at least express his anguish. Now directing the respondent to supply the documents and frame the charge would he an order in futility because as Mr. P. R. Thakur rightly contended that when two of the petitioner s material witnesses have already expired, many more may not survive that long. Moreover, it is not sure now much time prosecuion will take to examine witnesses. It would be a mockery of law to ask the petitioner now to face this trial after 18 years. I am supported in my this view by the observation of Supreme Court in the case of (3) Santosh De V. Archna Guha AIR. 1994 SC 1229, Supreme Court opined in that case that when the prosecution remains pending for number of years and not a single witness has been examined and the delay is not attributable to the accused, in such an eventuality proceedings should be Quashed. In that case prosecution kept pending for 14 years. There the petitioner was a public servant alleged to have possessed disporporticnate assets. Considering the delay, the Apex Court opined that when the charge was framed after lapse of about 9 years from the date of commital of case to the Sessions Court and delay was on account of fault of the prosecuton that by itself defeat the right of the accused to speedy trial and infringes his right under Article 21 of the Constiution. Therefore, proceedings were ordered to be quashed. To the same effect are the observations of the Apex Court in the case of (4) State of Andhra Pradesh V. P. V. Pavithran AIR 1990 SC page 1266, where it has been observed that when there is a lull in the investigation for very long, spell causing inordinate delay and the prosecution having not filed report as contemplated under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code. for a long period the further proceedings are liable to be quashed. for a long period the further proceedings are liable to be quashed. The right of accused for speedy investigation and trial in a criminal case is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. To the same effect are the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of (5)Biswanath Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar 1994 Cr. 1 L. J. 242, where it has been observed that calling the petitioner to enter upon defence after 16 years bound to cause him prejudice. Therefore, prosecution was ordered to be quashed. Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of (6) Raj Kumarchopra V" State of Punjab 1990 (2) C. C. Cases 93 also quashed the FIR because of the delay of 12 years in investigation and trial. The delay was held to be violative of constitutional guarantee of speedy trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when this delay was not attributed to the accused. This court also in the case Cri. M. (M) 399/90 decoded on 9th August, 1990 held that delay is fatal to a criminal trial. In the present case alleged amassing of wealth disproportionate to his known source of income pertains to the period from 1-1-68 to 31-12-77, We are now in 1996. almost 18 years have elapsed and till date charge has not been framed and even documents have not been supplied, The facts reveal that this inordinate delay was on account of fault of he prosection and not attribute to the petitioner. Even when the petitioner approached his Court no stay was granted in his favour. Still The trial of the case did not proceed. It remained where it was in 1990. With this pace expeditious trial is not possible. For no fault or act of the petitioner, either the investigation was delayed or trial got delayed. There has been no progress of the trial. There is el. so no explanation of delay by the prosecution. To my mind, this infringed the right of the petitioner guaranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even f as the counsel for the State contended that it is a serious criminal offence, yet we cannot be oblivious of the fact that almost more than 18 years have elapsed from the date of the alleged occurance. Still petitioner is not sure what is happening in this case. Even f as the counsel for the State contended that it is a serious criminal offence, yet we cannot be oblivious of the fact that almost more than 18 years have elapsed from the date of the alleged occurance. Still petitioner is not sure what is happening in this case. In view of these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner having been deprived of speedy trial does not deserve facing the trial any further. Hence the proceedigs pending in the Court of Special Judge in FIR No. 2/79 are liable to be quashed. Order accordingly.