JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Criminal Registered Case No. 237 of 1980 State v. Murari Lal Gupta , u/Sections 420, 467, 468, 472, IPC are sought to be quashed on the ground of infringement of petitioners fundamental right for speedy trial. 2. The Criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 25.3.80 on the basis of a police report u /Section 173, Cr.P.C. The accusation made against the petitioner was that during his employment with Ammunition Depot Bharatpur, as a storekeeper, the petitioner made undue monetary gains by putting in false claim for reimbursement of medical expenses allegedly incurred by him on the treatment of his wife Smt. Kalpana, though the petitioner was a bachelor at the relevant time. Charges for the offences u/ Sections 420,467 & 468, IPC were framed against the petitioner under order dated 28.8.82 and such order of the learned Magistrate was upheld by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 258/82 decided on 20.5.83. Only three witnesses out of sixteen cited have been examined so far. Some of the witnesses have been given up by the prosecution. The trial Magistrate has taken pains to procure the attendance of the witness by stressing upon the prosecution that since the case was old it would not be possible for him to allow more opportunities for the purpose. 3. It is true that the trial of the petitioner has been inordinately delayed and such delay cannot be lightly overlooked as it is likely to infringe petitioners right to speedy trial. But since, in view of the efforts made by the Trial Court, the trial is likely to be completed soon and also looking to the nature of accusation made against the petitioner it would not be, I think, proper to terminate these proceedings at this stage. 4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with direction to the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the trial in this case. On looking at the list of witnesses I gather that the witnesses, remained to be cross-examined, include mostly the Investigating Officers. The Trial Court may allow, at the most, three more opportunities to the prosecution to produce all their remaining witnesses for examination in Court or to file their affidavits as per provisions of law. On looking at the list of witnesses I gather that the witnesses, remained to be cross-examined, include mostly the Investigating Officers. The Trial Court may allow, at the most, three more opportunities to the prosecution to produce all their remaining witnesses for examination in Court or to file their affidavits as per provisions of law. The Trial Magistrate is expected to decide the case preferably within three months only.Petition dismissed. *******