Judgment 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding bearing Trial No. 1055 of 2000 (R.R. No. 1473 of 1967) arising out of Chapra Town P. S. Case No. 23 (7) of 1967 under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ application are that during the relevant time i.e. between 20.7.1959 to 8.4.1965, petitioner was posted as Head Clerk-cum-Accountant in the District Panchayat Office at Chapra. According to the prosecution, he received a sum of Rs. 2234.50 from the District Nazarat, Chapra but did not deposit the said amount in the Bank. Accordingly, allegation against the petitioner is of misappropriation of the said amount. Report to the incident was given to the police in the year 1967. From the record, it appears that the case was fixed for judgment on 6.9.1986 but since the report of the hand-writing expert (Ext. 3) was not on the record, the judgment could not be delivered. 3. Petitioner earlier came to this Court by filing Cr. W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986 seeking the same relief as has been prayed in the present application. The relief was sought for mainly on the ground that delay in disposal of the trial has violated the petitioners right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench ot this Court by order dated 8.12.1995, disposed of the writ application with the direction to the court, in seisin of the trial, to pass appropriate orders on the basis of materials already available on the record within four weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner. By the said order, petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on or before 8th of January, 1996. As directed by this Court, petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 4.1.1996. Case was adjourned by the trial court awaiting the receipt of the records from this court till 9.12.2000 and thereafter, this writ application was filed. 4. This writ application came up for consideration earlier on 8.11.2001. On the said date, this Court directed as follows: "One thing is clear that the trial which the petitioner is facing since 1969, is not being disposed of on the ground of non-availability of records for which no blame can be put on him. 4. This writ application came up for consideration earlier on 8.11.2001. On the said date, this Court directed as follows: "One thing is clear that the trial which the petitioner is facing since 1969, is not being disposed of on the ground of non-availability of records for which no blame can be put on him. Whether the records, in fact, were called for and stilt lying with this Court or has been sent to the learned Magistrate, require investigation. Let the Registrar General of the Court hold an inquiry and submit report on the following points: (1) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was called for and received by this court in connection with Cr. W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986 and (2) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, then whether the said records have been sent back to the court concerned after disposal of the aforesaid writ application. (3) In case, the Registrar General finds that the records have been sent to the trial court, the date thereof, (4) in case, he finds that the records have been sent to the court concerned, the date on which the same was received and (5) the Registrar General shall also fix the responsibility of the persons responsible for not making available the records of the case to the trial court. The Registrar General shall be free to take assistance from any other officer for the said purpose." 5 In pursuance of the order, the Registrar General has submitted its report. It reads as follows: "Before the Hon ble Bench presided over bv Hon ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad. Pursuant to the order of the Hon ble bench passed on 8.11.2001 in Cr. W.J.C. No. 228 of 2001 (Chandra Ketu Singh V/s. The State of Bihar) the Registrar General was directed to make enquiry and submit report on 19th November, 2001 on the following points: 1. Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was called for and received by this court in connection with Cr. W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986, and 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, then whether the said records have been sent back to the court concerned after disposal of the aforesaid writ application. 3. Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was called for and received by this court in connection with Cr. W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986, and 2. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, then whether the said records have been sent back to the court concerned after disposal of the aforesaid writ application. 3. In case, the Registrar General finds that the records have been sent to the trial court, the date thereof, 4. In case he finds that the records have been sent to the Court concerned, the date on which the same was received and 5. The Registrar General shall also fix the responsibility of the persons responsible for not making available the records of the case to the trial court. On receipt of the order of the Hon ble Bench entrusted the Assistant Registrar, incharge of Criminal department to hold enquiry into the matter and submit his report for placing the same before the Hon ble Bench on 19.11.2001. Consequently the Assistant Registrar incharge of Criminal Department has conducted enquiry into the matter thoroughly and submitted his detailed report through his notes at pages 3-7/n which has also been endorsed by the Joint Registrar, incharge of Criminal Department vide his notes at pages 7-8/n. It appears from the enquiry report of the Assistant Registrar at page 6/n that the records of Trial No. 1657/1986 has neither been called for by this court nor it has been received in the court in connection with Cr. W.J.C. No. 478/1986, so the question of sending back the same to the court below does not arise after disposal of the writ application by order dated 8.12.1995. A copy of which has already been sent to the Court below vide memo no. 221 dated 10.10.1996 at flag K Therefore, the remaining pointsrunning from 2 to 5 required no enquiry after enquiry into the matter covered under point no. 1. I submit the above report herewith along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Assistant Registrar incharge of the Criminal Department for kind perusal of the Hon ble Bench." 6. 221 dated 10.10.1996 at flag K Therefore, the remaining pointsrunning from 2 to 5 required no enquiry after enquiry into the matter covered under point no. 1. I submit the above report herewith along with the report of the Enquiry Officer, Assistant Registrar incharge of the Criminal Department for kind perusal of the Hon ble Bench." 6. Thereafter the case came up for consideration before this court on 19.3.2002 and on the said date the counsel for the petitioner confronted the court with the communication dated 24.7.1987 of the learned Magistrate and took a stand that the report submitted by the Registrar General is absolutely incorrect. To be honest, I felt ashamed, and asked for a further report in the following words: "(i) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was called in Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986? (ii) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 received in Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986? (iii) Whether the record of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 received in connection with any case pending before this Court? In case, the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was received in any case then the date of its receipt as also the date on which the same was sent to the trial court be mentioned. He shall also fix the responsibility of the person either working in the Registry of this Court or in the judgeship of Saran in not making available the record of the case to the trial court. He shall be free to take assistance from any other officer of the Registry or of the judgeship for the said purpose. The report called for must reach this court by 1.4.2002." 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Registrar General has submitted the following report: "Before the Hon ble Bench presided over by Hon ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar PrasadPursuant to the order of the Hon ble Bench passed on 19.3.2002 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 228 of 2001 (Chandra Ketu Singh V/s. The State of Bihar) the Registrar General was directed to make further enquiry and submit report on 1.4.2002 on the following points: (i) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was called in Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986? (ii) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 received in Cr. Rev. No, 478 of 1986? Rev. No. 478 of 1986? (ii) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 received in Cr. Rev. No, 478 of 1986? (iii) Whether the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 received in connection with any case pending before this Court? There is further direction of the Hon ble Court that in case, the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was received in any case, then the date of its receipt as also the date on which the same was sent to the trial court be mentioned, that responsibility be fixed on the person either working in the Registry of this Court or in the Judgeship of Saran in not making available the records of the case to the trial court. Registrar General was further allowed to take assistance from any other officer of the Registry or of the judgeship for the said purpose. On receipt of the order of the Hon ble Bench, I entrusted the Assistant Registrar, incharge of Criminal Department to hold enquiry into the matter and submit his report for placing the same before the Hon ble Bench on 1.4.2002. Consequently, the Assistant Registrar, incharge of Criminal Department conducted enquiry into the matter thoroughly and submitted his detailed report vide flag N which has also been endorsed by the Registrar (Estt) vide his notes at page 23/n. Point nos. i & ii: It appears from the enquiry report of the Assistant Registrar at flag N that the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 has not been called for by this court in Cr. Rev. 478 of 1986. However, the records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 was received in this Court in Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986 on 4.3.1987 from the Court of Sri A.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra under his letter No. 8 dated 24.2.1987 which is evident on perusal of the entry made by the Diarist, Criminal Department vide Diary No. 537 of the date, 4.3.1987. It was returned to the trial Court on 18.9.1997 vide 469-R of 1987 through registered parcel bearing serial no. 5741 dated 26.9.1997,33 Point no. iii : The records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 were not received in any other pending case. It was returned to the trial Court on 18.9.1997 vide 469-R of 1987 through registered parcel bearing serial no. 5741 dated 26.9.1997,33 Point no. iii : The records of Trial No. 1657 of 1986 were not received in any other pending case. After submitting the previous report dated 17.11.2001 by the then Registrar General (now Hon ble Bal Krishna Jha, J) and on furnishing a copy of letter by which the records of the Court below have been sent to this Court, the then Joint Registrar incharge of Criminal Department had enquired into the matter from the trial court on phone. It was reported that the record in question was available there and thereafter the original record of Trial No. 1657/799 of 1986/ 87 (Chandra Ketu Singh V/s. The State of Bihar) was transmitted to this court under letter No. 25 dated 28.2.2002 issued by the Court of Sri Bharat Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran at Chapra for reference in Cr. W.J. C. No. 228/2001. The learned District Judge, Saran at Chapra is being requested to enquire into the matter and submit a report to this Court in the matter of non-availability of the records before the trial court as expeditiously as possible after fixing responsibility on the person working in his judgeship. Registrar General may be permitted to pray before the Court three weeks time to submit a detailed report on the above points which can be furnished only after a report is obtained from the District & Sessions Judge, for which expeditious steps have been taken. Since the original records was earlier called for, by the Registry to ensure the availability of the record and it was found that the case record was lying in the judgeship, so that the District & Sessions Judge may not have any difficulty in enquiring into the matter. I submit the above report herewith alongwith the report of the Enquiry Officer, Assistant Registrar incharge of the Criminal Department for kind perusal of the Hon ble Bench". From this report, it is evident that the record of the trial court was received in this Court and the Registry should have understood the gravity of the matter and ought to have pointed out that fact while submitting its earlier report. The whole attempt seems to sideline the issue. From this report, it is evident that the record of the trial court was received in this Court and the Registry should have understood the gravity of the matter and ought to have pointed out that fact while submitting its earlier report. The whole attempt seems to sideline the issue. 8 I am clearly of the view that the report of the registry that the record was not received in connection with Cr. W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986 but received in connection with Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986 is absolutely wrong and in order to shield persons responsible for the same, lies after lies are being invented. From the letter of the learned Magistrate dated 24.7.1987 sending the record refers to letter No. 283 dated 6.1.1987 of this Court, which was sent in connection with Cr. W. J.C. No. 478 of 1986. The expression faro t© in the letter of the Magistrate, while sending the record is purposely being misconstrued as Criminal Revision as in Cr. Rev. 478 of 1986, the record from the trial court was not called for and in case it was sent by mistake, the record ought to have been sent back to the trial court immediately. I am of the firm opinion that when the record was sent by the learned Magistrate to this court in pursuance of letter no. 283 dated 6.1.1987 which is a letter sent in compliance of the order of this court in the writ application, there was no occasion for the Registry to say that the trial court record was not received in connection with Cr.W.J.C. No. 478 of 1986. In case, the registry assumed that the record was sent in respect of Cr. Rev. No. 478 of 1986, why was the said record not sent back immediately after the disposal of the said revision application and was only sent on 26.9.1997 and why this fact was not mentioned in the earlier report. 9. From what has been stated above it is evident that the Registrar General, while submitting the report, had acted in slip-shod manner to save the erring person which is, to say the least, not befitting his status. He being accountable to the proper functioning of the Registry should have critically analysed the matter and should not have simply endorsed the report of his subordinate. He being accountable to the proper functioning of the Registry should have critically analysed the matter and should not have simply endorsed the report of his subordinate. He ought to have realised that this Court is dealing with a case in which direction of this Court dated 8.12.1995 to dispose of the trial within four weeks is not being carried out for non-availability of trial court record. 10. As stated earlier, the record of the trial court, in fact, was received by this Court and was sent to the trial court on 26.9.1997. In fact, on my direction, the record has been traced out and has been forwarded to this Court by the trial court by its letter dated 28.2.2002. From the record, it is difficult to decipher as to the date on which the record was received by the trial court. In any view of the matter, what can be safely said that the trial court while adjourning the case from one date to another awaiting receipt of the record did not know that in fact record is lying there since September, 1997. I am pained to say that all is not well with the Registry. The Hon ble the Chief Justice may perhaps tike to direct for appropriate inquiry in the matter. 11. It is the stand of the petitioner that he cannot, in any way, be held responsible for delay in disposal of the case. He points out that it was as back as on 8.12.1995, that this Court directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders on the basis of materia! already available on the record from the date of appearance of the petitioner. Petitioner as stated earlier, was directed to appear before the trial court on or before 8th of January 1996 and, in fact, in compliance of the said order, he appeared before the Magistrate. I am of the opinion that, in case, the trial of the petitioner was not being disposed of on the ground that the record was not sent by this Court, he would have been well advised to approach this Court earlier. He has not chosen to do the same and wants to take advantage of the callousness on the part of the Registry of this Court as also the ministerial staff of the court of the Judicial Magistrate. He has not chosen to do the same and wants to take advantage of the callousness on the part of the Registry of this Court as also the ministerial staff of the court of the Judicial Magistrate. One may laugh at this state but what can be safely said that the prosecution, in no way, can be held to be guilty for delay in disposal of the trial. In the facts of the present case, I would not like to quash the criminal proceeding on the ground of its delay. 12. However, I would direct the trial court to dispose of the trial within four weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court within three weeks from today. The Registrar General shall ensure that the record is sent to the trial court by Special Messenger immediately. The learned Magistrate shall communicate to this court about the disposal of the trial immediately. 13. The application stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. 14. Let a copy of this order be laid before Hon ble the Chief Justice.