Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the. Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No.89/86 arising out of R. C.48/86, C. B. I. Patna pending at the cognizance stage in the court of Special Judge, (C. B. I.), North bihar, Patna under Sec.5 (1) (E)read with Sec.5 (2) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 as prolong criminal proceeding offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the alleged offence is not even prima facie made out. 2. A case against the petitioner, who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service (1970 batch) and is at present posted as Additional member Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna was instituted being R. C.48/86 nearly 10 years back by the C. B. I. on 8-12-1986, when he was posted at Darbhanga as Commissioner on the allegation that the petitioner has been in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Photostat copy of the F. I. R. has been appended as Annexure-2 to the present application. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the case has been instituted on 8-12-1986 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 30-12-1996 i. e. after more than ten years after the date of the institution of the case, as such, in view of decision of this Court as well as Apex Court, as the petitioners right to speedy Trial has been infringed, the prosecution was fit to be quashed. In this regard reliance has been made upon a decision of this court reported in 1997 (1) All Patna law Reporter 51; 1997 (1) BLJ 283 in the case of R. K. Mandal V/s. The State of bihar. A Division Bench of this Court while relying on the case of Santosh De v. Archna Guha reported in A. I. R.1994 supreme COURT 1229 following principles laid down in the Antuley case held that unexplained delay of eight years in commencement of the trial itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. Admittedly, in the said case delay was not attributed to the accused as such, the proceeding against the accused of the said case which was quashed was upheld. 4. In the case of Biswanath Prasad singh V/s. State of Bihar, (1994 Sppl. Admittedly, in the said case delay was not attributed to the accused as such, the proceeding against the accused of the said case which was quashed was upheld. 4. In the case of Biswanath Prasad singh V/s. State of Bihar, (1994 Sppl. (3)S. C. C.97), the Apex Court while dealing with the case relating to misappropriation of public fund for which f. I. R. was filed on 10-12-1977 and charge sheet was filed on 5.2.83 and the trial Court framed charges on 25-4-89 but thereafter as no much progress was made in the case and the appellant has already been dismissed from service, the supreme Court, noticing that in such a case stricter view should be taken as indicated in the Constitution Bench decision of Antuleys case, interfered in the matter mainly on the ground that even though F. I. R. was issued on 10-12-1977 and the charge sheet was filed on 5-2-1983 i. e. sifter a lapse of five years, no explanation was forthcoming for the extraordinary delay. The Apex Court held that may be this being the case of misappropriation of public fund, Investigation may have taken a longer time (sic) but cannot certainly take five years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it was held that calling upon the accused to enter upon defence after 16 years, in all the facts and circumstances of the case is bound to cause prejudice to him. It was also noted that nothing could be pointed out by the State Counsel to justify the delay of seven years in completing the investigation. Relying on the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that in the facts of the case which was under consideration as the explanation for the delay was virtually no explanation in the eye of law. Relying on the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court held that in the facts of the case which was under consideration as the explanation for the delay was virtually no explanation in the eye of law. In that view of the matter, as the prosecution against the petitioner was pending for more than 17 years and petitioner No.1 had died during the pendency of the writ application in the year 1988 and the Superintending Engineer, who accorded the approval for the auction purchase, had not been sent up for trial and further as the petitioner had been exonerated in the departmental inquiry, as, it was impossible to arrange a fair trial after lapse of such a long time and has caused harassment to the petitioners, it was held that right to speedy trial has been infringed and the prosecution launched against them was liable to be quashed. 5. Similarly, reliance has also been made in a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Santosh De V/s. Archna Guha reported in A. I. R.1994 supreme Court 1229. In the said case as the prosecution was pending since last 14 years and not a single witness was examined and the delay could not be attributed to the accused as the said delay was entirely on account of default by the prosecution and there was no explanation for the said delay by the prosecution, Apex Court found the same to be defeating the right of the accused for speedy trial as such, the order quashing the proceeding by the High Court was not interfered with. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the C. B. I. , on the other hand, has argued that the present case against the petitioner was registered on 8-12-1986 and after completion of investigation by the C. B. I. S. Ps. report was sent to the joint Secretary (Vigilance), the D. P. and t, Government of India on 11-4-1989 :| for according sanction of a proceeding. 7. The Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi gave information on 4- 4-1990 that as a strong case was made out of accumulation of assets disproportionate to the known source of income so sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner be accorded. The sanction order as required under Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was accorded by Government of Bihar on 19-1-1991. The sanction order as required under Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was accorded by Government of Bihar on 19-1-1991. However, D. P. and T, government of India made some queries on the basis of number of representations filed on behalf of petitioner B. K. Singh. Though replies were sent by the C. B. I. , but the sanction order for prosecution under Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act was not provided by the Central government upto 21-10-96 inspite of repeated reminders being sent by the c. B. I. So the charge sheet could not be filed earlier. The said sanction order was finally accorded on 22-10-19% after which the charge sheet against the petitioner has been filed in the Court of special Judge, C. B. I. on 30-12-1996. 8. Learned Counsel for the C. B.1. at length has tried to impress upon the court that no delay has been caused by the laches of the C. B. I, rather the same has been due to numerous representation filed by the petitioner and his wife before the sanctioning authority. He has given details some of such representation to stress his argument stating therein that B. K. Singh the petitioner made his first representation in 1988 to the C. B. I. , Head Office, details of which was sent by the C. B. I. to Patna Branch on 2-8-1988. Further, according- to learned Counsel on fictitious grounds a number of representations was filed by the petitioners and his family members. His wife Smt. Gyanti Devi gave a petition on 18-1-1989, reply of which was sent by C. B. I, on 15-3-89. Again the petitioner filed a petition before the government of Bihar on 1-7-89 reply to which was sent by the C. B. I. on 1-8-89. He filed a series of petitions before the d. P. and T, Government of Bihar on 7-8-90, 10-8-90, 25-8-90, 21-12-90, 24-1-90 and 7-12-1992 to which reply was sent by the C. B. I, on 9-8-91 and 18-6-93. D. P. and T. forwarded and filed objection vide letter dated 14-5-91 to the C. B. I, for detail comments. He filed a series of petitions before the d. P. and T, Government of Bihar on 7-8-90, 10-8-90, 25-8-90, 21-12-90, 24-1-90 and 7-12-1992 to which reply was sent by the C. B. I, on 9-8-91 and 18-6-93. D. P. and T. forwarded and filed objection vide letter dated 14-5-91 to the C. B. I, for detail comments. By another letter sent to D. P. and T. dated 9-8-91 a request was made for issuance of sanction order as according to learned Counsel, B. K. Singh being a highly placed Officer in the cadre of Indian Administrative Service was influencing officials of the central Government also. In this regard, it is stated that vide letter No.1249 dated 9-2-93 a request was made by the C. B. I, to D. P. and T. to spell out those issue on which further clarification was required but instead of sending the points for further investigation 118 page long representation of Sri Singh was again endorsed to C. B. I. by the D. P. and T. on 8-4-93 for detailed reply. Again detailed parawise comment by the C. B. I, was sent on 18-6-1993. After this a letter of D. P. and T. dated 6-4-94 was sent to the c. B. I, in which it was observed that when the proposal for sanction was submitted to the then Prime Minister on 11-4-91 it was directed that the State government and the C. B. I. be asked to thoroughly go into the various petition of Sri B. K. Singh. The matter was again discussed at length by C. B. I. Joint secretary (Vigilance), Government of. India on 20-9-94 and specific point for clarification were indicated by D. P. and T. for further inquiry. C. B. I. prepared point to point clarification regarding various income expenditure and assets of the petitioner on 17-1-95 and sent the same to the C. B. I. Head Office and to d. P. and T. Central Government finally accorded sanction for prosecution on 22-10-96 and then the charge sheet has been submitted on 30-12-96. C. B. I. prepared point to point clarification regarding various income expenditure and assets of the petitioner on 17-1-95 and sent the same to the C. B. I. Head Office and to d. P. and T. Central Government finally accorded sanction for prosecution on 22-10-96 and then the charge sheet has been submitted on 30-12-96. As according to learned Counsel there was no delay on the part of C. B. I. , rather laches have been due to the frivolous petition filed by the petitioner to delay the matter and misdirect and misguide the investigation and as a full proof criminal case of disportionate assets to the tune of Rs.14,41,285.00 has been made out against the petitioner, this Court should dismiss the present writ application. It has further been argued by learned Counsel for the C. B. I, that no prejudice has been caused to the accused as the trial has still not commenced. 9. Relying on the judgment of the supreme Court as reported in A. I. R.1980 Supreme Court 962 at page 984 in the case of V. C. Shukla V/s. State through c. B. I. It has been argued that the trial in a warrant case commences only when the charge is read to the accused and he is called upon to answer the charge and until the proceeding has reached this stage proviso (a) to clause (1) of Section 350 does not come into play. Specific reliance has been made on paragraph 38 of the said judgment that there was no question of trial starting until the charge was framed and in the present case as the charge has still not been framed by the Special Judge, no prejudice could be caused to the petitioner. 10. Learned Counsel for the C. B. I. has also dealt with the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating therein that the ratio decided in these two judgments were not relevant as far as the facts of the present case was concerned. 10. Learned Counsel for the C. B. I. has also dealt with the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating therein that the ratio decided in these two judgments were not relevant as far as the facts of the present case was concerned. The judgment of this Court as reported in R. K. Mandals case (supra) the Investigating agency could not show any laches on the part of the petitioner, one of the petitioner of the said case has already died and the other had been dismissed from service but as far as present case is concerned, the petitioner who is an i. A. S. Officer of 1970 batch is functioning as an Additional Member, Board of revenue and due to his filing of frivolous petitions, charge sheet could not be submitted earlier though the investigation has already been complete as back as 11-4-1989 itself. 11. According to learned Counsel the petitioner was further delaying the matter. Even after filing of the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge, he was filing petition there to the extent that the Court should stay its hand as the matter was pending before the High court though no interim order has been passed by this Court. Similarly, it has been argued that the case of Santosh De v. Archna Guha (supra) was also not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case the Court was of the view that the delay could not be attributed to the accused and there was no explanation of the delay by the prosecution, as such, the same vitiated the right of the accused to speedy trial and thus was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a fact which is not available to the petitioner in the present case as the delay in filing the charge sheet has fully been explained by the c. B. I, and the same has also been caused due to filing of frivolous petition by the petitioner before the Government of Bihar as well as Head Quarter of the C. B. I. and D. P. and T. , Government of Bihar by the petitioner and his wife and subsequent queries by the Government of India which has led to delay in filing the charge sheet. 12. 12. According to learned Counsel, the petitioner cannot take benefit of his own laches and as the delay in filing of the charge sheet and the laches on the part of the petitioner has fully been explained, he cannot claim any benefit due to said delay in filing of the charge sheet. 13. In the facts of the case, as the delay in filing of the charge sheet has fully been explained by the C. B. I. and there does not appear any deliberate laches on the part of the C. B. I. this court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ application fails and the same is dismissed. However, before parting with the order as a delay of ten years has already been made, I direct the Special Judge, (C. B. I), North Bihar, Patna to expedite the matter, if necessary by taking up the same on day to day basis so that the case can be concluded at an early date. Application Dismissed.