Judgment :- 1. The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-1 to A-4, have been implicated in this case for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 420 and 420 IPC and they have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No.11603 of 1987 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8. 2. Mr.K.Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, viz., A-1 was working as Income Tax Officer, A-2 was working as Upper Divisional Clerk in Income Tax Office, A-3 was working as Tax Assistant, Company Range -IV and A-4 was also working in the Income Tax Department. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the petitioners have been implicated for the above said offences and the case is pending right from the year 1987 without seeing the light of the day of commencement of trial. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that in view of the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners have been put into great hardship by appearing before the Court for periodical hearings. The learned senior counsel further contended that in view of no progress in this case as not even a single witness so far examined in spite of the lapse of more than two decades, the proceedings would definitely amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court. The learned senior counsel would further submit that in view of such inordinate delay and in view of the fact that there is absolutely no progress in the trial, the petitioners right to speedy trial has been infringed and as such they are entitled to be relieved from the case as the continuation of proceedings would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Law. 3. Mr.N.Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI contended that the case was registered in the year 1986 in R.C.No.11-A/1986 and the charge sheet was filed before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate in the year 1987 which was taken on file in C.C.No.11603 of 19987. It is submitted that A-7 to A-15 have pleaded guilty and they have been convicted accordingly. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that as per the verification of the document, it is found a revision in Crl.R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed before this Court by A-1. It is submitted that A-7 to A-15 have pleaded guilty and they have been convicted accordingly. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that as per the verification of the document, it is found a revision in Crl.R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed before this Court by A-1. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that as on date, there were no document available before the trial Court. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the respondent police is not liable for the delay in conducting the trial. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record and the affidavit filed by the first petitioner herein. 5. It is seen that the petitioners have been implicated for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b) r/w 420 and 420 IPC. The undisputed fact remains that the complaint was registered by the respondent police as early as in the year 1986 and the charge sheet was filed before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate as early as in the year 1987 which was taken on file in C.C.No.11603 of 1987. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that A-7 to A-15 have already pleaded guilty and they have been convicted accordingly immediately after filing the charge sheet. It is also further brought to the notice of this Court that a revision in P.R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed by A-1, the first petitioner herein challenging the order of conviction of A-7 to A-15. It is very much painful to note that the instant case is pending as early as from the year 1987. The undisputed fact remains that as on date there is absolutely no progress whatsoever as even till date not even a single witness has been examined. This Court cannot brush aside yet another disturbing feature that the accused, A-7 to A-15 have been guilty and they have been convicted immediately after filing the charge sheet as early as in the year 1987. There is absolutely no material available on record to show that what had happened from 1987 to 1991. This Court cannot brush aside yet another disturbing feature that the accused, A-7 to A-15 have been guilty and they have been convicted immediately after filing the charge sheet as early as in the year 1987. There is absolutely no material available on record to show that what had happened from 1987 to 1991. It is seen as per the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that a revision in R.C.No.447 of 1991 was filed on the file of this Court challenging the conviction of A-7 to A-15 but the fate of that Revision case is also not even known to anyone till date. Over and above, it is pertinent to be noted that there is no indication of any stay of further proceedings in the Crl.R.C.No.447 of 1991. But strangely and curiously there is absolutely no reason seen from the materials available on record for the inordinate delay in conducting the trial. 6. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court that any accused is entitled to speedy trial which is a fundamental right and as such in view of the delay in more than two decades, this Court of the considered view that it is nothing but infringement of fundamental right of the petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-1 to A 4. It is also pertinent to be noted that the petitioners, who were the Income Tax officials have been suffered untold hardships because of the criminal case hanging on their neck all these years and their mental agony and torture cannot be explained in words. This Court is also constrained to state that from the materials available on record, this Court is not able to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are in any manner responsible for the delay in conducting the trial. It is also pertinent to be noted that this Court is also equally unable to come to the conclusion that the prosecution is also in any way responsible for the delay. 7. The Honble Supreme Court has held in MOTI LAL SARAF V. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR reported in 2006 (10) SCALE 12 that, "49. It is the bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. 50. 7. The Honble Supreme Court has held in MOTI LAL SARAF V. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR reported in 2006 (10) SCALE 12 that, "49. It is the bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. 50. The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. 51. In order to make the administration of criminal justice effective, vibrant and meaningful, the Union of India, the State Governments and all concerned authorities must take necessary steps immediately so that the important constitutional right of the accused of a speedy trial does not remain only on papers or is a mere formality. 52. In the instant case not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution in the last twenty six years without there being any lapse on behalf of the appellant. Permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the Criminal proceedings are quashed". 8. In view of the above settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court as well as the undisputed facts, as stated above, this Court has come to the inevitable conclusion to quash the proceedings and accordingly, the proceedings pending in C.C.No.11603 of 1987 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, are hereby quashed. This petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.