ORDER 1. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28-8-2000 PASSED BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CRR NO. 2620 OF 1996 WHEREBY THE PROCEEDING IN SPECIAL CASE NO.4 OF 1977 UNDER SECTIONS 420 AND 468 OF THE PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 5(2) AND 5(1)(C) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AGAINST THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUND OF INORDINATE A DELAY IN CONCLUDING THE TRIAL. IT APPEARS THAT PROSECUTION WAS LAUNCHED IN THE YEAR 1975 AND AFTER COGNIZANCE WAS TAKEN, THE ACCUSED MOVED THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT BY FILING A REVISION FOR QUASHING THE PROCEEDING, WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF IN THE YEAR 1990 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE SPECIAL COURT TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. SINCE THE TRIAL COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED WITHIN SIX MONTHS, THE ACCUSED UNSUCCESSFULLY MADE A SECOND ATTEMPT BEFORE B THE HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING THE PROCEEDING AND THIS TIME A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN THREE MONTHS BY ORDER DATED 26-10-1995. THEREAFTER THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED, THE ACCUSED ENTERED THE DEFENCE, THE SPECIAL COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND THE CASE WAS RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT. WHEN THE CASE WAS PENDING JUDGMENT, ON 19-8-1996 AN APPLICATION WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN PERSONS AS DEFENCE WITNESSES WHICH PRAYER WAS GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. EVEN AFTER HAVING OBTAINED AN ORDER IN HIS FAVOUR UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE ACCUSED INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE DEFENCE WITNESSES, ADOPTED DILATORY TACTICS BY MOVING THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING OF THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND OF INORDINATE DELAY IN TRIAL. THE HIGH COURT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPLICATION, ALLOWED THE SAME AND QUASHED THE PROSECUTION WHEREBY PREMIUM HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ACCUSED WHO WAS THE WRONGDOER AS TRIAL COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT HE REPEATEDLY MOVED THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT FOR QUASHING THE PROCEEDING AND GOT THE SAME STAYED EVERY TIME ALTHOUGH AT THE STAGE OF FINAL HEARING HE LOST. THIS BEING THE POSITION, WE ARE CLEARLY OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDING. 3. THIS BEING THE POSITION, WE ARE CLEARLY OF THE VIEW THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE PROCEEDING. 3. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE. NOW THE TRIAL COURT WILL PROCEED TO HEAR ARGUMENTS AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE EXPEDITIOUSLY.