S. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional petition has been filed under sections 401 and 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding in Special Case No. 1 of 1988 arising out of CBI: ACB:calcutta Branch being Crime No. RC. 84/87-Calcutta dated 28. 11. 1987 under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code pending before learned 2nd Special Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South ). It was earlier heard by this court (with A. B. Mukherjee, J.) and was disposed of by the Order dated 22. 12. 95 with a direction that the pending proceeding against the petitioner be quashed. As against this order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1997 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1364 of 1996 ). By an order dated January 17, 1997 the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, set aside the order of this court and remanded the matter for deciding the instant revisional petition afresh on merits. A relevant extract of the order of the Supreme Court may be placed as below:"the order of the High Court in view of the clear provisions of section 30 (supra) cannot be sustained and we, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court impugned before us. Since, the High Court did not express any opinion on the other points raised in the revision petition, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the criminal revision petition, filed by respondent No. 1, afresh on merits after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made by us above. It shall be open to the respondent to raise all such pleas as are available to him in law, including the effect of superannuation of the respondent. The High Court, we request, may dispose of the matter expeditiously, No costs. " ( 2 ) AFTER the remand, certain time was consumed in procuring attendance of the petitioner by an Administrative notice and also thereafter in insisting upon early hearing of the matter. This revisional petition was thus heard on 6. 5. 1998. The High Court, we request, may dispose of the matter expeditiously, No costs. " ( 2 ) AFTER the remand, certain time was consumed in procuring attendance of the petitioner by an Administrative notice and also thereafter in insisting upon early hearing of the matter. This revisional petition was thus heard on 6. 5. 1998. ( 3 ) THE criminal case referred to above was instituted against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Subodh Chandra Dutta, one of the partners of M/s. Metaflux Corporation, with the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation at 13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta on November 28, 1987 for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation levelled in the complaint was, inter alia, to the effect that the petitioner had demanded a bribe/illegal gratification of Rs. 700 from Subodh Chandra Dutta, a tenant of Rehabilitation Industries Corporation Ltd. in lieu of promise to regularise the unauthorised construction made by him inside the premises. A trap was laid by the officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation on 30. 11. 87 and the petitioner was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of Rs. 700. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed a chargesheet against the petitioner for an offence under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on 11. 2. 88 after completion of the investigation. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Special Judge under the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1949 on 9. 7. 1988. ( 4 ) THE proceeding against the petitioner was sought to be quashed on the plea of the violation of the fundamental right of a speedy trial as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is true that the cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Special Judge as long back as on 9. 7. 1988 but, subsequently, in course of the pendency of the trial no prosecution witness was examined till the institution of the instant revisional petition some time in the year 1994. The reason behind the delay, in my considered opinion, was not by way of voluntary inaction or blatant lapse on the part of the prosecution to go for a sincere effort to prosecute the proceeding. The reason behind the delay, in my considered opinion, was not by way of voluntary inaction or blatant lapse on the part of the prosecution to go for a sincere effort to prosecute the proceeding. One or the other reason causing the delay was at times for want of appearance and steps on behalf of the petitioner as also, at times, the Presiding Officer of the Court having not vested with special power to try. Associated to those reasons it was but natural that the attendance of the witnesses could not be procured in the state of uncertainty. It was probably under this background that the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before this court that the best course now available is to insist upon the learned special court to go for a speedy trial henceforth and, for that, it was contended that a direction of this court be given to the Trial Court for a time-bound hearing and disposal of the pending trial. I have been convinced with this submission and, accordingly, there appears no necessity to give a day-to-day account of the pending proceeding before the Trial Court and, accordingly, I prefer to straightway proceed to request the learned Special Judge insisting upon him to go for a speedy trial and, if possible, to continue the hearing day-to-day unless compelled by some reasonable intervening circumstance and to dispose of the proceeding as early as possible and, preferably, within four months from the date of communication of this order. ( 5 ) WHILE still on the subject I may express that in the given facts and circumstance, I could not be persuaded to agree with or to hold that the instant case was one, which would attract the implication of Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceeding on the ground of infringement of a fundamental right of a speedy trial. I do not, however, express any opinion as to the merits on factual score and also on the effect of superannuation of the petitioner, which are left open to be determined during the trial. ( 6 ) THIS revision petition is accordingly disposed with the observation as above. ( 7 ) LET this order be communicated to the learned Special Judge forthwith. Petition disposed of .