JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner, who is one of the F.I.R named accused of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 158 of 2003 registered under Sections 420, 406 and 120B I.P.C., has prayed for the quashing of the entire proceedings since the case had not been concluded although there had been a passage of almost 25 years. 2. Relying on the decision in Mahendra Lal Das V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 2001(4) PLJR (SC)183, it has been submitted that he has suffered mental agony as also financial loss by deprivation of his emoluments which he is entitled to consequent to his retirement/superannuation in the year 2004 from bank service and that the 25 years of agony and tribulations that he has had to undergo without the trial being completed has led to the contravention of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of a Right of Speedy Trial. In this context, it was submitted that the criminal proceeding was instituted on 23.8.1983 and charge-sheet was submitted after 12 years on 31.12.1995 whereafter charges were framed after another 5½ years on 2.7.2001 and the case is still pending for evidence. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner at the relevant time was the Cashier in the Patna City Branch of Patliputra Central Cooperative Bank Limited and the two co-accused were the Accountant and Assistant Accountant in the said Branch and the accused persons had allegedly defalcated a sum of Rs. 2,19,767.14/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,25,660/- was deposited by the petitioner prior to the institution of the case. The further allegation was that besides the aforesaid amount the accused persons had temporarily embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,66,195/- only. 4. It is unfortunate that the case oft the allegation of economic offences is still pending for the last 26 years. The lackadaisical approach of the prosece on in consuming 12 years in submitting charge- sheet and taking another 5½ years for framing charges and thereafter the case not having ended although 8 years have been passed depicts a very sorry state of affairs and deserves condemnation. 5. The lackadaisical approach of the prosece on in consuming 12 years in submitting charge- sheet and taking another 5½ years for framing charges and thereafter the case not having ended although 8 years have been passed depicts a very sorry state of affairs and deserves condemnation. 5. Keeping in view the glaring circumstances and the snails pace at which the trial is proceeding and there appearing no motivation in the court-in-seisin of the case to complete the trial with promptitude, due regard being had to the prolonged period of litigation, it is hereby directed that the court-in-seisin of the case shall positively dispose of the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.