JUDGMENT ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a view to quash the G.R. Case No. 2277 of 1979 pending before the 1st Court of Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that on 18th of November 1979 a case was instituted on Bongaon Government Railway Police Station Case No.2 of even date on the basis of a written complaint against B.M. Saha and others. The allegation in short is that a Railway Wagon containing 240 bags Gram Dal which was originally booked from Guldhar to Cuttak under Invoice Nos. 1 and 2 by one Makhanlal Suresh Kumar Dhali was diverted to Madhyamgram while the Wagon was on its way to Cuttak via Numpura Yard with connivance of the Yard Staff after changing the Label of the said Wagon. On 30th of October 1979 the Wagon was detached at Madhyamgram and after breaking the Seal, consignement was delivered to the accused persons by the then Station Master of Madhyamgram and the article ultimately found its way to Post a bazar in Calcutta by a Truck No. WBQ 265. The further case of the petitioner is that on and from 12th of April 1980 he surrendered after getting an order of Anticipatory Bail from this Court before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. He is regularly attending Court but inspite of his due diligence not a single witness could be examined as yet. Accordingly, he is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. None of the opposite party is contesting the case. I have also heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the petitioner who has drawn my attention to the copy of the order sheet annexed with the revisional application in support of his contention that the accused surrendered voluntarily on 12th of April 1980 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. It is also argued that after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted on 30th November 1981. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and copies were supplied on 7th of May 1982. It is submitted that after lapse of more than 13 years, would be specifically on 29th of November 1995 charge was framed against all the accused persons including the petitioner. Since then not a single witness be examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, cognizance was taken and copies were supplied on 7th of May 1982. It is submitted that after lapse of more than 13 years, would be specifically on 29th of November 1995 charge was framed against all the accused persons including the petitioner. Since then not a single witness be examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, the Ld. Advocate submits that the accused who retired as a Government employee long back is suffering much since 1980 without any chance of calculation of trial. It is also submitted that as per charge sheet there are as many as 30 witnesses to be examined and it is anybodies guess when this long list of witnesses will be examined. 4. I have given my careful consideration, I have also gone through the order sheets of the Lower Court Record itself which was called for. I have meticulously scrutinised each and every date and conclusion drawn by him is that the present petitioner except for a couple of occasions are diligent in the sense that he is attending the Court regularly since he surrendered on 12th of April. I also find that apart from the delay caused by the co-accused of the petitioner, particularly accused Ambar Samaddar who by reasons of his abscontion while on bail caused delay to the extent of 6-7 years, the prosecution is to blame much as I find that on very many occasions adjournments were taken even in the face of the presence of the accused persons at the instance of the Assistant Public Prosecutor since he was not ready or he had not the requisite papers or instructions before him. On a good number of occasions due to the physical absence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor the case could not proceed. In this connection it is worth while to note that the Ld. Magistrate took a very lenient attitude and the orders passed by him seldom reflect that he was critical of unnecessary adjournment being taken at the instance of the prosecution. In this connection it is worth while to note that the Ld. Magistrate took a very lenient attitude and the orders passed by him seldom reflect that he was critical of unnecessary adjournment being taken at the instance of the prosecution. I have already said that so far as the rest of the accused persons are concerned, specially accused Ambar Samaddar was conspicuous by his abscontion when his presence had to be ensured by drawing attention to high officials including the Home Department of the Government of West Bengal, the present petitioner is diligent enough to attend Court on most of the days when it was fixed for trial. The question will be whether the accused petitioner is to suffer because of the acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the other co-accused. I am not un-mindful to the fact that in the event of extending the benefit of Article 21 to the petitioner, the prosecution may suffer but at the same time it must be kept in mind that a Government official whose guilt is yet to be proved is labouring under the hardship of attending Court for the last 18 years even after his retirement because of latches on the part of the prosecution and to some extent the Court which could not rise to the occasion and take deterrent step against a recalcitrant prosecution. A protracted trial like this in my opinion definitely affects the life and liberty of the citizen specially such citizen is an elderly one who has superannuated from his service. At the same time, it must be stated that so far as the other accused persons are concerned, they cannot deserve the same consideration as the same present petitioner since their performs in the past is far from satisfactory not to speak of Ambar Samaddar who alone is responsible for more than 6 years delay. In the circumstance, I am not in favour of quashing the proceeding in its entirety. 5. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that so far as the present petitioner alone is concerned there has been a gross infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution since the prosecution is guilty of the latches. Accordingly, the proceeding pending below, namely, the G.R. Case No. 2277 of 1979 pending before the First Court of Judicial Magistrate at Barasat so far as it relates to the present petitioner stands quashed. Accordingly, the proceeding pending below, namely, the G.R. Case No. 2277 of 1979 pending before the First Court of Judicial Magistrate at Barasat so far as it relates to the present petitioner stands quashed. In the result, the present petitioner released from his bail bond. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate shall however proceed with the trial so far as it relates to the other accused persons expeditiously and shall dispose of the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of the order. The Ld. Judicial Magistrate shall chalk out a time bound programme and hear the case from day to day and take effective steps to ensure attendance of the prosecution witnesses. Each and every prayer for adjournment be it from the prosecution side or from the defence must be seriously scrutinised and no un-necessary vexus adjournment shall be allowed. Let the Lower Court Record and the copy of the order be sent to the Court below as expeditiously as possible. All stay orders so far as it relates to the co-accused of the petitioner stands vacated. Revisional application allowed. Proceeding against the petitioner alone quashed. Direction given.