Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record of the original case No. 307/83 State vs. Omprakash. (2). The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in this case the trial has not been concluded in spite of the fact that the case was instituted on 31st May, 1981 and there is no prospects of conclusion of the trial, because out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only one witness has been examined so far. It is further submitted by him that the delay, which has occurred for the conclusion of the trial is on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and in fact, the prosecution has neglected in producing its witnesses and that the fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution to obtain speedy justice has been violated, and therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the Court as it is in violation of the Constitution. He has therefore, prayed that the entire proceedings pertaining to criminal original case No. 307/83 be quashed. (3). Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the observations made by the Honble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay Etc. vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1). (4). I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (supra) and in Mansukhlal Vithaldas vs. State of Gujarat (2) as well as the law laid down in ``Common cause A Registered Society through its Director vs. Union of India & Ors. (3). (5). It is true that every person accused of an offence is entitled to the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to speedy justice may be read as part and parcel of that fundamental right. At the same time, it is also true that penal laws not only prescribe punishment for acts charged as offences, the penal laws create the offences and by implication impose legal duties to the performed by the citizens. Penal laws, therefore, by creating legal duties, create corresponding rights in favour of the citizens and the only manner in which those rights can be enforced is by prosecuting and punishing the offenders. Penal laws, therefore, by creating legal duties, create corresponding rights in favour of the citizens and the only manner in which those rights can be enforced is by prosecuting and punishing the offenders. The rights created by the penal laws, by implication, cannot be enforced in any other manner than by prosecution of the offender. This explains why the prosecution of the offenders is considered to be necessary for the enforcement of penal provisions. In view of this, balance has to be stuck between the fundamental rights of the accused persons and the rights of those who are victims of offences. Justice has to be conceptualized as a balance between the rival interests. Justice can never be one sided. In order a certain act may be just, it should be just not only for the accused, it should also be just for the prosecution. In Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (supra), their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court observed:- ``Ultimately, the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors-`balancing test or `balancing processand determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Ordinarily speaking, where the Court comes to the conclusion that Right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, shall be quashed. But this is not the only course open. The nature of the offence and other circumstances in a given case may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order-including an order to conclude the trial within a fixed time where the trial is not concluded or reducing the sentence where the trial has concluded as may be deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time- limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of Right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of Right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weight all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. (6). After taking into consideration the decisions of the Honble Apex Court and the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that if six months time is given to the prosecution, the trial may be concluded, it appears to be just and proper that direction be issued u/S. 482 read with Sec. 483 Cr.P.C. that every possible effort shall be taken by the prosecution as well as the concerned court to conclude the trial within the period of six months from today. It is further necessary to emphasise that during the trial, the accused is required to be present unless his attendance is exempted for the expeditious trial of the case, cooperation on the part of the accused is equally necessary. (7). For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is partly allowed. It is hereby directed u/S. 482 read with 483 Cr.P.C. that the learned trial court shall take every possible legal steps to conclude the trial within a period of six months to be calculated from today. The witnesses shall be summoned and the summons or the bailable warrants as the case may be given to the Public Prosecutor so that he be get them served in time. The Public Prosecutor is directed to deliver he summons or the warrants to the concerned agencies responsible for service thereof and ensure that the process issued by the trial court is served/executed in time. It is further directed that as far as may be possible, the hearing of the case shall be conducted on day to day basis. No adjournment shall be granted on the request of any party unless the adjournment of the case becomes inevitable on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the court. (8). It is further directed that as far as may be possible, the hearing of the case shall be conducted on day to day basis. No adjournment shall be granted on the request of any party unless the adjournment of the case becomes inevitable on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the court. (8). If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move another petition, if he is so advised. (9). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners belong to Punjab and they are being put to unnecessary harassment as they have to appear to every date of hearing. In view of this difficulty, it is directed that if the petitioners move an application for exempting their attendance and make adequate arrangement for their representation during the trial on the dates of the hearing, which may be fixed subject to just exceptions, the application shall be disposal of in accordance with law. It is however, made clear that if the accused do not make adequate arrangements for their representation during the trial on the date of hearing which may be fixed, the trial court shall be at liberty to direct the accused to appear in person when the case is taken up for hearing. (10). The petition is disposed of accordingly. (11). A copy of this order be sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate for information and necessary action. (12). The record of the case may be remitted back to the lower court.