JUDGMENT This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding pending before the 5th Special Court, Calcutta, being Case No. 6 of 1987 under Sections 120B/409, 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one P.M.K. Kutty, Managing Director, Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. (A Government of Kerala Undertaking), Alleppy, Kerala, a case was registered with Park Street Police Station being Park Street P.S. Case No. 499 dated 16.8.85 under Sections 120B/409, 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet before the 5th Special Court, Calcutta. Prosecution case as alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is that the petitioner is an appointed agent in respect of one show-room in Calcutta of the said Corporation for promoting the sale of Kerala Coir Products. The said appointment was made under an Agreement dated 17.3.86. The present petitioner was the Managing Director of the firm namely M/s. Vaikath Brothers, Alleppy, who executed the said Agreement. It was alleged that co-accused one Mrs. Chitra Tull was incharge of the Calcutta Show-Room and was appointed by the petitioner and both the accused persons committed the offence of falsification of account and Criminal breach of trust and a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and the said Mrs. Chitra Tull. 3. It appears that the learned Judge, Special Court by his order dated 8.7.87 took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and issued process against him by order dated 8.7.87. 4. Mr. Balal Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is in no way attracted in the instant case as the present petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the order of taking cognizance and all subsequent orders passed by the learned Judge, Special Court are beyond jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Roy further submits that on 17th June, 1983, an Agreement was executed between M/s. Vaikath Brothers, Alleppy, a partnership firm constituted of V.Z. Job (present petitioner) and his son V.J. Zakaria and the Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd., Alleppy. The Corporation appointed M/s. Vaikath Brothers for promoting sale of the products of the Corporation. The appointment was on Principal to Principal basis for a period of 3 years. The Corporation appointed M/s. Vaikath Brothers for promoting sale of the products of the Corporation. The appointment was on Principal to Principal basis for a period of 3 years. Mr. Roy further pointed out that Clause 7 of the said Agreement provided that "if there was any deficit in stock the dealer agrees to reimburse the company for the deficit stock with interest at the rate of 21.5% per annum. Clause 15 of the said Agreement further provided that the parties to the Agreement agreed that the appointment is on Principal to Principal basis. Clause 30 of the said Agreement specifically mentioned that any dispute arising out of this appointment including the construction and fulfilment thereof and the liability to pay amount shall be settled by Arbitration. 6. It was submitted by Mr. Roy that in course of business with the said Corporation the petitioner’s film was entitled to get considerable amount by way of commission from the said Corporation. But in spite of repeated demands the said Corporation failed to pay the same. When the petitioner’s representative insisted on making the payment in respect of the said commission, the said Corporation instituted the instant Criminal Proceeding against the petitioner and said Smt. Chitra Tull. 7. Mr. Roy further submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute relating to settlement of accounts. A civil suit was filed by the said Corporation before the learned Subordinate Court at Alleppy, Kerala which was numbered as O.S. No. 5 of 1986. In the said civil suit a compromise petition was filed by the said Corporation and the petitioner's firm and the petitioner himself. In the said compromise petition it was agreed that the accounts between the parties would be settled by Audit and for that purpose both the parties jointly appointed and nominated the Chartered Accountants M/s, Rangamani & Co. to ascertain the amount, if any, payable by the defendants, i.e., the petitioner’s film. Pursuant to the said compromise petition M/s. Rangamani & Co. was appointed Arbitrator. Arbitration before the aforesaid Arbitrator is still pending and no award has yet been passed. From a letter of the said Arbitrator, which is annexed to this application as Annexure ‘G’, it becomes evident that no step could be taken by the Arbitrator as no claim has been filed by the Corporation to the Arbitrator. 8. Mr. was appointed Arbitrator. Arbitration before the aforesaid Arbitrator is still pending and no award has yet been passed. From a letter of the said Arbitrator, which is annexed to this application as Annexure ‘G’, it becomes evident that no step could be taken by the Arbitrator as no claim has been filed by the Corporation to the Arbitrator. 8. Mr. Roy finally submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute relating to settlement of accounts and the allegations made in the charge-sheet do not make out any offence under Section 120B/409 and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the state supports the contention of the petitioner that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is in no way attracted in the instant case since the present petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. I have carefully gone through the relevant papers and I am of the opinion that the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 has no jurisdiction to try the instant case as the petitioner is not a public servant. To attract the jurisdiction of the Special Court two things are required. Firstly, the person committing the offence must be a public servant and secondly, the property in respect of which the offence was committed must be a Government Property. In my opinion, the said Corporation cannot be equated with the Government and the petitioner cannot be said to be an agent of the Government. Furthermore, as per terms of the Agreement the appointment of the petitioner was on Principal to Principal basis. Since the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, the order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and all subsequent orders passed by the learned Judge, Special Court are without jurisdiction and are hereby set aside. 11. In the instant case charge-sheet was submitted on 26.6.87. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge on 8.7.87. Copies were supplied under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.12.90 without any fault on the part of the petitioner. It also appears from the order-sheet that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 239 Cr. In the instant case charge-sheet was submitted on 26.6.87. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Judge on 8.7.87. Copies were supplied under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.12.90 without any fault on the part of the petitioner. It also appears from the order-sheet that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 239 Cr. P.C. for discharge on 28.6.91, which was kept pending for about six years and ultimately it was disposed of on 12.5.97. I have carefully gone through the entire order-sheet which has been annexed to this application. It becomes evident from the order-sheet that almost on all the dates the petitioner was represented by his Lawyer but the matter wall adjourned time to time by the learned Judge and charge could not be framed as yet. In my view, of this score alone the present case warrants interference by this Court. In view of the fundamental right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India it is a fit and proper case in which the proceeding should be quashed on this score alone. This is a case which is pending since 1985. Considering the age of the petitioner, who at present is more than 80 years of age and considering the mental agony which the petitioner had suffered for the last 13 July, I think this is a case which should be quashed on this score alone. In the result the revisional application succeeds and the same is allowed. The impugned proceeding being case No. 6 of 1987 pending before the learned Judge, 5th Special Court is quashed.