JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J. 1. This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding arising out of Bally R.P.F. Post Case No. 2(11)91 under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The fact of the case, as it appears from the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer of the case, is that on 8.11.91 at about 9.30 hours Sub-Inspector U.B. Biswal along with other officers apprehended one' absconder accused in connection with Bally R.P.F. Post Case No.5 (5)91 dated 21.5.91 under section 3 (a) RP. (U.P.) Act. During interrogation of the said accused he made a confession that he disposed of stolen Railway materials in the shop-cum-godown of one Bala Gupta, which he would identify, On the basis of such statement the officers of Bally R.P.F. Post along with officers of the local police station conducted a raid in the said godown. During search one Madan Gupta and two others were arrested while they were engaged in unloading Railway iron materials from a truck bearing No. W.M.K. 2126 which was parked inside the premises of the said godown. Other two persons were also arrested while they were cutting rail pieces with the help of gas-cutter inside the said godown. During search of the said godown huge quantity of Railway iron materials were recovered from the godown and the truck with the said materials were seized under proper seizure list. During enquiry it could be ascertained that the godown in question is registered in the name of one Sushila Devi and the management of the same is looked after by his son Gopal Prasad Show (present petitioner No. 1). It was alleged that Gopal Prasad Show was having full knowledge about the storage and handling of Railway iron materials unlawfully obtained by the accused persons in his godown and for this illegal act he was charging high rate of rent from the accused persons. Therefore, he had connived with the offenders for his personal gain which is punishable under section 4 R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1996. During enquiry a prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons and accordingly the enquiry report (complaint) was filed before the learned Magistrate with a prayer for taking cognizance of the offence under sections 3(a)/4/13 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act. 3. During enquiry a prima facie case was made out against all the accused persons and accordingly the enquiry report (complaint) was filed before the learned Magistrate with a prayer for taking cognizance of the offence under sections 3(a)/4/13 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act. 3. On receipt of the said complaint the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah by his order dated 17.12.93 took cognizance of the offence. 4. Mr. Soumen Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the search and seizure under the R.P. (U.P.) Act can only be made under section 10, which will prevail over the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there is no other provision for the search and seizure. He further submits that the Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force had no competence or authority to seize and as such the same is void ab initio and is a nullity. Mr. Ghosh relies on a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in 1993 Cal. Cr.L.R. (Cal) 175, wherein it was held that whenever a search of any premises is to be made in connection with deposit or sale of railway property in respect of which there is reason to believe that they are stolen or unlawfully obtained, then the search warrant must be issued in accordance with the requirement of section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act. 5. The R.P.F. Officers starts an enquiry under section 8(1) of R.P. (U.P.) Act when any person has been arrested under section 6 by an officer of the Force or he has been arrested by any other member of the Force under section 7 and is forwarded to the R.P.F. Officer. Such arrest can be made by either of them when any person has committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed the offence under sections 3 and 4 of R.P. (U.P.) Act. 6. Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the circumstances in which the Officer-in-Charge of a police station or the investigating officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector can conduct the house search without a search warrant during the investigation of any case. This section has been made applicable to the R.P.F. Officers also during an enquiry under the R.P. (U.P.) Act by virtue of section 8(2) of the said Act. This section has been made applicable to the R.P.F. Officers also during an enquiry under the R.P. (U.P.) Act by virtue of section 8(2) of the said Act. The officer of the Force can also conduct a house search during an enquiry under the Act without a search warrant under certain conditions laid down under section 165 Cr.P.C. It is very important to note here that section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act empowers the R.P.F. Officers to conduct a house search when he is not enquiring into any case. In the present case, as it appears from the enquiry report (complaint) submitted by the R.P.F. Officer, the search was conducted in course of enquiry into the case and as such the question of obtaining a search warrant before conducting the search does not arise. So in my opinion the search and seizure conducted by the R.P.F. Officers were very much within their legal competence and there is no illegality in the same. 7. I have carefully gone through the judgment referred to above and I am of the opinion that the said judgment does not have any manner of application in the instant case because of the reasons referred to above and that the provision of section 8(2) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court in its true perspective. 8. Section 10 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act enables an officer of the Railway Protection Force to conduct a search and recover railway property from any premises of other person prior to registration and enquiry of the case under the R.P. (U.P.) Act. 9. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate, also relies on an unreported judgment of this court which is annexed to this revisional application as Annexure 'B'. In the said judgment a proceeding under the R.P. (U.P.) Act was quashed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on the ground that search was not conducted in compliance with the provision of section 10 of the Act. I have gone through the said judgment and I find that the said revisional application was decided ex parte in absence of the Railways and the provision of section 10 and section 8(2) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act was not placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge in its true perspective. I have gone through the said judgment and I find that the said revisional application was decided ex parte in absence of the Railways and the provision of section 10 and section 8(2) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act was not placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge in its true perspective. So, in my opinion the said judgment does not have any application in the present case. 10. It appears that the petitioners filed an application before the learned Magistrate praying for discharge under section 245 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is the submission of the petitioners' learned Advocate that more than 4 years have passed from the date of appearance of the accused persons. But the prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses referred to under section 244 Cr. P.C. So, the petitioners are entitled to get an order of discharge under section 245 (3) Cr. P.C. There is no doubt that the case is pending for a long time. But without going through the entire order-sheet it is not possible for this court to decide at whose instance such delay was caused. Where the delay is caused at the instance of the accused, he will not be entitled to get the benefit of section, 245 (3) of the Code. The entire ordersheet, which the accused petitioners are supposed to annex to their revisional application, has not been annexed to this revisional application for the reasons best known to them. So, in absence of the entire order-sheet it is not possible for this court to take that particular point for consideration. 11. The last submission of Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate is that it is well settled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As it has already been stated above that the case is pending for a long time. So. I direct the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial with utmost expedition preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order without granting any further adjournment to either of the parties. 12. Mr. Barindra Nath Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that a defect or illegality in the search, however serious, has no direct bearing on competency or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial of an offence. 12. Mr. Barindra Nath Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that a defect or illegality in the search, however serious, has no direct bearing on competency or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial of an offence. He further submits that even assuming that there is any illegality in the search, the same will not vitiate the entire proceeding if the accused is not prejudiced in any way. In my opinion, this point need not be decided here as I have already held that there is no illegality in the search and seizure. 13. In the result the revisional application fails and the same is dismissed. Revisional application dismissed.