Judgment :- (1) In this criminal revisional application petitioners challenge an order passed in connection with a proceeding arising out of a complaint case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 174/175 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby their prayer for dismissal of the said complaint and discharge from the case has been rejected. (2) Mr. Sanjoy Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before this Court that the impugned complaint was lodged by the complainant Shri Dilip Kumar Chattopadhyay in the capacity of a public servant and on the allegation of disobedience of his order by the accused persons and therefore after his retirement from service, when he ceased to be a public servant the aforesaid complaint becomes infructuous and is liable to be dropped. According to him the complainant Dilip Kumar Chattopadhyay has retired from the service long back, but till date in spite of the order of the Court passed on 8th July, 2008, nothing has been done by the prosecution to substitute him. He further submitted as it is evident from the materials on record no letter of authorization from the department was filed along with the petition of complaint that by itself is a ground for dismissal of the same. Lastly, Mr. Chakraborty submitted the aforesaid case is pending for more than 14 years without any fault of the accused, as such same being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, the impugned case is liable to be quashed. (3) On the other hand, Mr. Himangshu De, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. I/D.R.I, strongly repudiated the submissions of Mr. Chakraborty and contended that the grounds on which the petitioner prayed for discharge in the Court below none of them are tenable in law. Therefore, the learned Magistrate very rightly rejected their prayer for discharge. (4) Mr. Joy Sengupta appearing on behalf of the State not only lent support to the submissions made on behalf of the D.R.I, but also supplemented the same contending that delay by itself is no ground for quashing of a complaint unless it is shown the prosecution is alone liable for the same and not the accused, He prays for dismissal of the instant criminal revision with exemplary costs. (5) Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions. (5) Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions. Perused the impugned order as well as the materials available from the Lower Court Records. (6) In my considered opinion, the contention of Mr. Chakraborty since the complainant of the case, who lodged the impugned complaint in his official capacity, as a public servant, has retired from his service and on his retirement ceased to be a public servant, accordingly the impugned complaint has lost its force and become invalid, therefore the case instituted thereupon is liable to be dropped is without any substance and has no merit. In any event, merely because the complainant, who lodged the complaint in the capacity of a public servant, has ceased to be so that would not nullify his legal rights of carriage of proceedings nor he be precluded from deposing in the case in the capacity of the complainant. If any complaint is made by a person in the capacity of a public servant it would, be sufficient to maintain such complaint if there is necessary averments as regards to the same in the petition of complaint and the question of filing any authorization is not at all necessary, unless his status of public servant is disputed. A letter of authorization can always be filed by the complainant at any stage of the prosecution if so required. Thus, the order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the petitioners prayer for discharge and dismissal of the complaint is wholly justified and deserves no interference. (7) Now the only question left for consideration of this Court whether the pendency of this case for 14 years makes the same liable to ;be quashed for infringement fundamental right of the accused of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is well settled the question of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution arises in a case where trial is protracted due to the reason which is attributable to the prosecution alone and when the defence is in no way liable for the same. This is a case where complain, relates to the offences under Section 174 and Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code and both the said offences are punishable with simple imprisonment which may be extended upto one month or with fine that may extend to 500/- rupees or both. This is a case where complain, relates to the offences under Section 174 and Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code and both the said offences are punishable with simple imprisonment which may be extended upto one month or with fine that may extend to 500/- rupees or both. This case was instituted on June 8, 1995 but till date not even the plea has been recorded. I find since April 21, 2003 both the petitioners were enjoying exemption from their personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were regularly represented by their learned lawyer but due to the non-availability of the accused No. 3 there was no progress in the trial, I also find no steps was taken by the learned Court below nor there was any move by the complainant for filing of the case against the absconding accused and for proceeding against the present petitioners. Therefore, the grievances of the petitioners about the infringement of their fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is wholly justified. Accordingly, the case No. C/720/95 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta, so far as the present petitioners are concerned stands quashed. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.