JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The petitioners are being tried in Criminal Case No. 225/96, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Todaraisingh, for the offence under Section 448, IPC. The charge was framed on 25.5.94, and the petitioners pleaded not guilty. After, the framing of the charge, about five years have elapsed. But, the prosecution could not complete the evidence. The petitioners thereupon moved an application, for closing of the prosecution evidence, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in case of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1998 SC 3281 ) . The learned trial court rejected the application, vide its order dated 22.1.99 and directed the prosecution to produce the evidence on its own. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.PC., has been preferred. 3. It has been admitted at Bar, before me, by both the sides that the charges was framed on 25.5.94, for the offence under Section 448, IPC, against the accused-petitioners, who pleaded not guilty. Admittedly, more than two years have elapsed since then and the prosecution evidence could not be completed. It has been admitted before me at Bar by the learned Public Prosecutor that the inability for completing the prosecution evidence within the said period, is not attributable to the conduct of the accused-petitioners. In the impugned order itself, the learned trial court has stated the reason for non-Completion of the prosecution evidence. It has stated that the witnesses are not appearing in spite of repeated summoning and that is why the prosecution evidence could not be completed. 4. The entitlement of the accused to speedy trial, has repeatedly been emphasised by Honbl'e The Supreme Court. Though, it is not enumerated as a fundamental right in the Constitution, Honbl'e The Supreme Court has recognised the same to be implicit in the spectrum of Article-21. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ( (1992) 1 SCC 225 ), a Constitution Bench of Honbl'e The Supreme Court, dealt with this aspect of the matter and laid down certain guidelines. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ( (1992) 1 SCC 225 ), a Constitution Bench of Honbl'e The Supreme Court, dealt with this aspect of the matter and laid down certain guidelines. In the case of Raj Deo Singh (supra), Honbl'e The Supreme Court has observed as under- "After deep consideration of the matter, we proceed to supplement the propositions laid down by the Constitution Bench in Antulays case (supra) with the following direction : (i) In cases where the charge is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on competition of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case. (iv) But if the inability for completing the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no Court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in any of the cases covered by Clauses (i) to (iii). (v) The above directions will be in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by this Court in " Common Cause" v. Union of India ( (1996) 4 SCC 33 ) : (1996 AIR SCW 2279) , as modified by the same Bench through the order reported in "Common Cause" a Registered Society v. Union of India ( (1996) 6 SCC 775 ) : (1997 AIR SCW 290) ." 5. According to the principles & guidelines laid down by Honbl'e The Supreme Court, the prosecution evidence is required to be closed, because, more than two years have elapsed since the framing of the charge and the prosecution evidence has not been completed, and the inability for completing the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period, is not attributable to the conduct of the accused. The impugned order is therefore, not sustainable. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is therefore, not sustainable. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 22.1.99 of the learned trial court, is set aside and it is ordered that the prosecution evidence shall stand closed as on 22.1.99, the date of the passing of the impugned order by the learned trial court. The learned trial court shall now proceed to the next step, provided by law, for the trial of the case, after closing of the prosector evidence as on 22.1.99. *******