( 1 ) THE petitioner has been charge-sheeted for offences under Ss. 405, 407, 408, 409, 420, 467 and 474, IPC in the above cases. ( 2 ) THE allegation against the petitioner was that while he was the paid secretary of Khandika Seva Sahakara Sanga he misappropriated the total sum of Rs. 1,63,901. 45 paise as per the audit inspection report made under S. 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. The alleged misappropriation was for the co-operative years 1983-84 and 1984-85. The society filed criminal cases. The petitioner was arrested and enlarged on bail. ( 3 ) AFTER the investigation was over, the respondent-police filed charge-sheets in the above criminal cases. In all the cases charge-sheets were filed on 28-101985. The trial Court took cognizance on 8-5-1986. The petitioner appeared before the Court on 4-6-1986. Right from 4-6-1986 till 4-9-1997 there has been no progress inthe criminal cases. It is submitted that the accused has since been dismissed from service. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the continuation of the trial for nearly 11 years and more is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the petitioner would be entitled to an acquittal. The petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheets in the criminal cases that are pending before the Civil Judge and Addl. C. J. M. , Sagar. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Subba Reddy relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1229 : (1994 Cri LJ 1975) (Santosh De. v. Archna Guha ). The Supreme Court at paragraphs 6 and 12 has held as follows :-"6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the delay in conduct of the case has been caused by the accused-respondent. From 1978 to 1986 and again from November 1987 till this day, there has been no progress in the case. Not a single witness has been examined so far. In these circumstances, following the principles enunciated in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225 : (1992 AIR SCW 1872 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717), the judgment of the High Court is affirmed and the criminal appeal is dismissed. 12. We are not satisfied that there are any valid grounds for interference with the order of the High Court. 12. We are not satisfied that there are any valid grounds for interference with the order of the High Court. The most glaring circumstance in the case is the delay in commencing the trial. The case was committed to sessions Court on July 15, 1974 and the charges came to be framed by the Sessions Court only on April 13, 1983 i. e. , after a lapse of about eight years. The appellant is not in a position to explain the reasons for this delay. In the order under appeal, the High Court has stated that this delay is entirely on account of the default of the prosecution. This is not a case of what is called 'systemic delays' as explained in A. R. Antulay, AIR 1992 SC 1701 : (1992 Cri LJ 2717 ). In our opinion, this unexplained delay of eight years in commencing the trial by itself infringes the right of the accused to speedy trial. In the absence of any material to the contrary, we accept the finding of the High Court that this delay of eight years is entirely and exclusively on account of the default of the prosecution. Once that is so there is no occasion for interference in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. " ( 6 ) IN this case there is no material brought on record to show that the accused was responsible for protracting the trial. There were one or two adjournments by the accused. But those adjournments were because the witnesses were not procured by the prosecution. ( 7 ) THERE are some subsequent developments that have taken place. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has paid the entire amount alleged to have been misappropriated and what remains to be paid is the interest on the alleged misappropriated amount. A sum of Rs. 1,64,123. 00, which is the subject matter of the alleged misappropriation, has been paid to the complainant in full. It was submitted that the complainant insisted on the payment of interest. The petitioner-accused has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,877/- by way of interest in two equal instalments of six months each from this day. The petitioner has also undertaken that he will not claim any backwages. It was submitted that the complainant insisted on the payment of interest. The petitioner-accused has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,877/- by way of interest in two equal instalments of six months each from this day. The petitioner has also undertaken that he will not claim any backwages. ( 8 ) THE fact that the petitioner has paid the alleged misappropriated amount and has agreed to pay the interest on the amount cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. Misappropriation is misappropriation even if it is a temporary misappropriation. The repayment of the money by the accused with interest shall have no bearing in this criminal petition. ( 9 ) FOR more than eleven years the trial is pending without any progress for no fault of the accused-petitioner. On the basis of a domestic enquiry the petitioner was removed from service. The petitioner has been undergoing ordeal of attending the Court on the dates of trial without any progress. Although it has taken eleven years not a single witness has been examined by the Court. Such an inordinate delay will be a violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Every accused is entitled to a speedy trial. Unexplained and inordinate delay of the trial for no fault of the accused is clearly in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Expeditious trial is a basic right to an accused which cannot be trampled upon unless it can be shown that the accused was to blame for the delay in the trial. No such material is placed before the Court to show that the petitioner-accused was responsible for the unreasonable delay in commencing the trial. ( 10 ) AS agreed before this Court, the petitioner shall pay the balance of the amount of Rs. 1,35,877/- towards the interest in two equal instalments of six months each from the date of receipt of this order. ( 11 ) THE Criminal Petitions are allowed. The Criminal Cases Nos. 412/89, 363/89, 414/89, 364/89 and 365/89 on the file of the Civil Judge and Addl. C. J. M. , Sagar stand quashed as being in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .