JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J. (Oral):- State has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 15.1.2010 passed by Special Judge, Patiala thereby declining the request of the State/Prosecution to segregate the trial of respondent No. 4 – Gurmeet Singh from the other accused respondents. 2. The brief fats inter alia are that a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondents in case FIR No. 30 dated 11.7.2007 under Sections 8, 9, 13(1)(d)(e), 14 read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. Other respondents were duly served to face the trial, however, respondent No. 4 who is residing in U.S.A. could not be served despite of sending summons through the Ministry of External Affairs, therefore, an application was moved by the State/Prosecution to segregate the trial of respondent No. 4 – Gurmeet Singh – accused from other accused respondents which was rejected by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment. 3. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 sought adjournment and has stated that since some of the private respondents have not been served, hence, it would not be proper to hear the petition at this stage. 4. In the case in hand trial for serious offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act is pending for about last three years, therefore, other respondents can not save themselves from prosecution/trial saying trial should commence only after respondent No. 4, who is staying in U.S.A., is served. In the opinion of this Court, question as to whether trial of Gurmeet Singh should be segregated from other respondents is between prosecution and the Court; other accused have no right to oppose the segregation of trial, therefore, present petition can be heard and decided without service on the unserved respondents and without hearing the respondents in the present matter. 5. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Addl. A.G. Punjab has argued that despite of sending summons to respondent No. 4 through Ministry of External Affairs he could not be served as yet. Therefore, trial of Gurmeet Singh – respondent No. 4 should be segregated from other accused. 5. Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Addl. A.G. Punjab has argued that despite of sending summons to respondent No. 4 through Ministry of External Affairs he could not be served as yet. Therefore, trial of Gurmeet Singh – respondent No. 4 should be segregated from other accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Lal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1999(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 282, on the judgment of Divison Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Ram Nath Roy vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1988 Cri.L.J. 324 and on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Murali vs. State of Kerala, reported in 1999(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 317 and has argued that one of the co-accused could not be served then trial of that accused can be segregated from the trial of six co-accused. 6. This Court in the matter of Lal Singh’s case (supra) has observed as under:- “7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the accused, Darshan Singh, has gone abroad and is not presenting himself before the Court, and, therefore, the case is lingering on. He contends that the other accused are unnecessarily being put to lot of trouble. The court concerned will take into consideration the unnecessary harassment caused to the other accused in view of the absence of the co-accused Darshan Singh and will take appropriate action for splitting the case of Darshan Singh and proceeding with the case of the remaining accused.” Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the matter of Ram Nath Roy’s case (supra) in paragraph No. 14 has observed as under:- 14. In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 342 of 1986, (Gopal Kumar V. State of Bihar) the first information report was recorded on 13th April, 1978 under Sections 379, 411 and 416 of the Penal Code. The charge sheet was submitted with reasonable expedition within the year 1978 itself. It is manifest from paras 5 and 6 of the detailed counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State that two of the co-accused continued to abscond for more two years from 22nd Oct. 1973 to 11th Dec. 1985, and the court was ultimately compelled to separate the trial of the petitioners from the absconding co-accused, and proceeded to frame the charge on 21st Dec. 1985. 1973 to 11th Dec. 1985, and the court was ultimately compelled to separate the trial of the petitioners from the absconding co-accused, and proceeded to frame the charge on 21st Dec. 1985. It is plain from the counter-affidavit that the petitioners or their co-accused have been substantially and primarily responsible for occasioning the delay in the present case. They cannot possibly be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. Their case clearly comes within the rule that if delay and default is occasioned by the conduct of the accused himself then he must be deemed to have waived the right to speedy public trial in the case. On an over-all conspectus of the case, I find that these petitioners are dis-entitled to the benefit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This application has, therefore, to be consequently dismissed. Kerala High Court in the matter of Murali’s case (supra) in paragraph No. 16 has observed as under:- “16. In this case it has to be noted that even though the learned Magistrate attempted to secure the presence of the petitioner in court even by resorting to coercive steps by issuing N.B.W. against him, it did not succeed and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no other alternative but to split up his case, refile the proceed against the other accused. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Magistrate against him to stand separate trial is illegal or cruel, is absolutely untenable. Had the petitioner appeared before the court on his adding as an accused in the case, the learned Magistrate could have proceeded with the de novo trial as far as the petitioner is concerned in the very same case. Therefore, due to the non-appearance in court when he was added as an accused in the case, the learned Magistrate was forced to split up the case against the petitioner to refile the same and proceed against the other accused already on record. Under the circumstances the order passed by the learned Magistrate splitting up the case against the petitioner, “haracter the same and directing the petitioner to stand trial separately from the other accused already in the party array, is perfectly justified and cannot be “haracterized as illegal or improper.” 7. Under the circumstances the order passed by the learned Magistrate splitting up the case against the petitioner, “haracter the same and directing the petitioner to stand trial separately from the other accused already in the party array, is perfectly justified and cannot be “haracterized as illegal or improper.” 7. In the opinion of this Court, if an accused out of several accused in a trial, involving an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, is not being served then his trial must be segregated from the other accused who have been served and are facing trial. Keeping the trial pending for indefinite period waiting the service on respondent No. 4/ co-accused would amount to undue delay in the trial against the other accused who are present before the trial Court. Every trial should be commenced and should reach to logical end without any undue delay. Other accused have absolutely no locus to say that trial against them should not be commenced unless respondent No. 4 is served. In the humble opinion of this Court no legitimate right of co-accused/private respondents shall be adversely effected if their trial is segregated from the trial of unserved accused/respondent No. 4. Fair and speedy trial in a civilised society is must. Staying the trial for indefinite period awaiting service on unserved co-accused would be in violation of fair and speedy trial. 8. Petition is allowed. 9. Application moved by the prosecution for splitting the trial of Gurmeet Singh – respondent No. 4 from other accused respondents stands allowed. 10. Learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law against other accused respondents. ------------0.S.L.0------------