JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner through this writ petition has alleged that his fundamental right for speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated as he has been facing trial since 15.5.1984 and not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution so far and prayed that the entire proceedings in criminal case No.59/87 pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City be quashed and he be discharged. 2. Briefly the relevant facts are that on the report dated 1.8.83 lodged by the Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Brahmpuri, A-Zone-1, Jaipur against Thakur Kalyan Singh, Banskho House, Ganga Pole, Jaipur for theft of electricity by its unmetered consumption, crime No.90/83 was registered at PS Brahampuri vide FIR Ann.2. However, the SHO after investigation submitted a charge sheet on 16.5.84 against petitioner Raghuveer Singh for the offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act on the basis of statements of certain witnesses in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Jaipur. 3. A perusal of the certified copies of the order sheets of the trial court indicate that initially some adjournments were taken at the instance of the advocate for the petitioner and ultimately on 29.1.87 charge was framed. Thereafter, on 18.4.87 and 9.3.90 prosecution witnesses were present in the court but their statements could not be recorded due to paucity of time. The case was lateron transferred to the file of Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City on 11.7.91. Again it was transferred to the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate on 9.6.92. Thereafter the prosecution has been given umpteen opportunities to adduce its evidence for about 33 times till 28.10.95. More opportunities were further given but till date not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, a period of more than 11 years has passed but the prosecution has persistently failed to examine even a single witness and for this delay the accused-petitioner is not at all responsible. Moreover, the electric connection was in the name of Kalyan Singh Rajput, the father of the petitioner, who died during investigation and the challan was filed against accused-petitioner and one Mahaveer, who then was a juvenile offender. 4. Moreover, the electric connection was in the name of Kalyan Singh Rajput, the father of the petitioner, who died during investigation and the challan was filed against accused-petitioner and one Mahaveer, who then was a juvenile offender. 4. In K.K. Tiwari v. S.P., C.B.I., 1989(1) RLR 80 (DB) this court has held that in ordinary circumstances, callous and inordinately prolonged delay of seven years or more which does not arise on account of fault of the accused or otherwise not occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason an investigation and trial for an offence other than capital ones would plainly violate the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. In Chhaju Ram v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 774 , State of UP v. Kapil Deo Shukla, 1972 CAR 459 and in a string of cases the Apex Court has reiterated that if the court is satisfied that the trial in a criminal case has been protracted due to the negligence or lapse or inadvertence of the prosecution agency and the accused is not responsible for delay and the delay remains unexplained then the fundamental right of the accused petitioner to get speedy trial gets offended and in such cases, the trial deserve to be quashed. 6. Offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code as also under section 39 Indian Electricity Act are punishable for imprisonment for a period upto three years. 7. In the instant case, there is a delay of about 11 years from the date of framing of charge and the trial of the case has been occasioned due to apathy, callousness, indifference and carelessness on the part of the prosecution agency and for such a trivial offence, the accused petitioner is facing trial since the year 1984. Hence it is manifestly clear that the fundamental right of the petitioner for having a speedy trial has been grossly violated. 8. In the premises of above discussion, I allow this writ petition, quash the entire proceedings in criminal case No.59/87 State v. Raghuveer Singh pending for trial in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur and drop the proceedings against the petitioner. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Director, Prosecution, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur and the learned trial court for information.Petition allowed. *******