Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing an order dated 10.2.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Railway, in Samastipur NRPA (RPF) No. 3 of 1991 (Tr. No. 165 of 1993), whereby the petition filed by the petitioners for their discharge has been rejected and direction has been given to frame charge against the petitioners under Sec. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on telephonic information the business premises of the petitioner, Baidyanath Prasad @ Baidyanath Sah was raided and searched on 22.2.1991 by the Railway Police Force Personnel and some articles were recovered. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioners and two other accused persons under Sec. 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short R.P.U.P. Act). It appears that after enquiry, an enquiry report as submitted. 3. The case of the petitioner-Baidnath Sah is that he is the owner of the Firm S.K. Enterprises, Bahadurpur, Samastipur dealing in sale and purchase of scrap materials. He used to purchase railway materials in railway auction and also from the person who purchased railway materials in railway auction to bulk quantity. In support of that the petitioners produced bills, cash-memo and other documents to show that he is a bona fide purchaser. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that for the offence under Sec. 3 of the R.P.U.P. Act, the conviction is upto five years and this case is pending for more than 6-7 years and hence no charge can be framed on this ground alone. Learned Counsel in support of his contention, relied upon the order passed by this Court in similar cases. The learned Magistrate in his order has taken notice of the receipts filed by the petitioners in support of the fact that he is bona fide auction purchasers from railway administration, but it held that the receipts cannot be considered at the-time of framing of charge. 6. The learned Magistrate in his order has taken notice of the receipts filed by the petitioners in support of the fact that he is bona fide auction purchasers from railway administration, but it held that the receipts cannot be considered at the-time of framing of charge. 6. Admittedly, the criminal case was registered against the petitioners on the basis of report on 22.2.1991 and cognizance was taken on 31.1.1992 on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the railway police force personnel, ft is also admitted fact that till date charge has not been framed although about 7 years have passed and the case is pending for the last seven years. There is nothing on the record to show that the delay in proceeding with the case has been cased due to laches on the part of the petitioners. In such circumstance in my opinion, for the ends of justice, the instant proceeding against the petitioners should not continue any further. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulays case AIR 1992 SC 1701 . Relevant portion of the observation of the Apex Court reads as under: (1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. (2) Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompass all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal revision and retrial. That is how this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view. 7. In another case of Santosh De V/s. Archna Guha -- . the Supreme Court following the principles laid down in A.R. Antulays case (supra), held that this unexplained delay of 8 years in commencing the trial by itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. The proceeding in that case against an accused, who was a public servant, allegedly possessing disproportionate assets, was quashed. the Supreme Court following the principles laid down in A.R. Antulays case (supra), held that this unexplained delay of 8 years in commencing the trial by itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. The proceeding in that case against an accused, who was a public servant, allegedly possessing disproportionate assets, was quashed. Similarly in another case of misappropriation of public found, the Apex Court quashed the proceeding for the reason that there was inordinate delay in the trail of the case. Reference may be made to the case of Bishwanath Prasad V/s. State of Bihar 1994 Suppl. (3) SCC 97. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Mandal V/s. State of Bihar 1997 (1) BLJ 283 , has followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and quashed the criminal proceeding registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of its pendency for more than seven years. 8. Regard being had to the facts of the case I am of the view that the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and also the prosecution against the petitioners is hereby quashed.