JUDGMENT :- 1. Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in C.C.No.29 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and quash the same. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is charged with the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After the framing of charges, the revision petitioner/accused is facing trial from 8.8.2002. Till now, the witnesses were not examined and he appeared before Court on almost all the hearings, except for one or two. The prosecution has not taken effective steps to bring the witnesses and examine them in time. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused vehemently contended that for no fault of the revision petitioner, for the past nine years, he has been facing the trial and was put into hurdle and he also suffered mental agony and the speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of the revision petitioner/accused and hence, the revision petitioner/accused has come forward with the present Crl.O.P. to quash the criminal case. 4. Learned Government Advocates (Criminal Side) submitted that it is true that the revision petitioner/accused appeared before Court, that no independent Prosecutor has been appointed for dealing with the corruption cases and only one Prosecutor is in-charge of two Districts and he appeared only two days before Court and there was vacancy in the post of Prosecutor and hence, the prosecution was not able to dispose of the case within the stipulated time and prayed for three months' time to both the Prosecutor and the Judicial Officer to dispose of the case on day-to-day basis, i.e. in Salem District, the trial to be held on every Tuesday and Wednesday and on those days, the Public Prosecutor appeared as per the status report. 5. Considering the rival submission made by both sides, it is seen that as per the FIR, the alleged occurrence took place on 8.11.2001. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.29 of 2002 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge was framed on 13.8.2003. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/accused appeared before Court on almost all hearings, except for one or two. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.29 of 2002 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge was framed on 13.8.2003. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/accused appeared before Court on almost all hearings, except for one or two. After framing of charges, P.W.1 was examined and the chief examination of P.W.1 was over on 23.10.2003 and after that, there is no progress in the trial. 6. While perusing the 'B' Diary of the trial Court, it shows that admittedly, no separate Public Prosecutor has been appointed for the conduct of the case and one Public Prosecutor was appointed to conduct the case for two Districts and he attended the Court only for two days in the week in Salem District, i.e. on Tuesday and Wednesday and hence, the Public Prosecutor was not able to co-operate in the disposal of the case within the stipulated time. 7. Admittedly, as already stated, the revision petitioner/accused appeared before Court for almost all hearings, except for one or two. The charge against the revision petitioner/accused is under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Now, the corruption is a burning problem throughout the world, especially in India. In such circumstances, while perusing the FIR, the allegation is that he demanded Rs.1,000/-for granting patta for one cent for the homeless poor women. I am of the view that it is not a fit case for discharging the petitioner from the charge levelled against him, without examining the witnesses. 8. I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused. It is suffice to meet out the ends of justice by giving the directions as below. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, for the past nine years, the revision petitioner/accused is attending the Court and to meet out the ends of justice, I am of the view that the trial Court could be directed to dispose of the case within three months by examining the witnesses on every Tuesday and Wednesday whenever the Public Prosecutor appears before Court and report the disposal of the case before this Court. 10. 10. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of the records along with a copy of this order, by examining the witnesses every Tuesday and Wednesday whenever the Public Prosecutor appears before Court and the prosecution is also directed to dispose of the case on day-to-day basis and the defence is also directed to co-operate with the prosecution in cross-examination of the witnesses then and there. The trial Court shall report before this Court about the disposal of the case. 11. With the above directions, the Crl.O.P. is disposed of. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.