Judgment : 1. The Petitioner/Accused No.1, has focused the instant Criminal Original Petition seeking for issuance of direction by this Court to the trial Court in completing the trial of main Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2014 pending on the file of the Learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Salem. 2. According to the Petitioner/Accused No.1, while serving as Inspector of Police, Attur Police Station, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered in Cr.No.09/AC/2004/SL for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the complaint preferred by one Kalaiselvam. The trap was organized and he was arrested on 27.11.2001 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem detachment and remanded to judicial custody. 3. The allegation, against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/-for releasing the vehicle, which was seized by him. It appears that the case was registered on 27.11.2001 and ultimately the charge sheet was laid on 05.11.2003 and the same was taken on file by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem on 03.11.2003 in Spl.C.C.No.45 of 2003. 4. It transpires that in the main case in Spl.C.C.No.45 of 2003, on the file of trial Court, so far witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Later, the main case viz., Spl.C.C.No.45 of 2003 on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem was transferred to the newly constituted Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Salem and taken on file by the said Court in Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2014 and the same is pending as on date. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that PW3, is to be examined today, viz., 01.08.2014. Earlier L.W.3 – Mr.V.Natarajan was produced before the trial Court on 18.07.2014, but due to Advocates' Boycott, he was not examined on that day before the trial Court as PW3. Hence, it is represented on behalf of the respondent/complainant that LW3-Mr.V.Natarajan is scheduled to be examined today viz., 01.08.2014, as PW3. 6. It is to be noted that an accused is entitled to expect that his case ought to be investigated as quickly as possible so that he may know what he is charged with. In fact, speedy investigation and charge sheeting are necessary even in the interest of prosecution. 7. 6. It is to be noted that an accused is entitled to expect that his case ought to be investigated as quickly as possible so that he may know what he is charged with. In fact, speedy investigation and charge sheeting are necessary even in the interest of prosecution. 7. It is to be pointed out that a speedy trial is embodied in Section 309 of Cr.P.C. The concept of 'Speedy trial' is based on public / societal interest. As opined by this Court, 'Right to Speedy trial', naturally flows from the ingredients of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which embraces (i) the stage of investigation, (ii) inquiry, (iii) trial, (iv) appeal, (v) revision and (vi) retrial. No wonder, 'Speedy trial', is a constitutional requirement and it is a part and parcel of fundamental right to life and liberty. It cannot be gainsaid that an accused ought not to be subjected to undue incarceration prior to his conviction. 8. Indeed, Section 309(1) Cr.P.C., enjoins that when the examination of witnesses has commenced, the same shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. 9. Added further, from the objects and reasons for bring the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is clear that a provision prohibiting the grant of stay is included in the statute for speeding up the proceedings. Also, a criminal Court should exercise its powers under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Cr.P.C., to effectuate the right to speedy trial in a watchful and diligent fashion. 10. In fact, the prohibition is couched in a language admitting of no exception whatsoever, which is clear from Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prohibition is mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. The sub Section consists of three clauses. For all the three clauses, the controlling non- obstante words are set out in the beginning portion. 11. It may not be out of place for this Court to make a relevant mention that in G.O.(Ms.) No.731, Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 03.10.2012, the State Government had accorded sanction for the constitution of four Special Courts, one each at Villupuram, Salem, Sivagangai and Tirunelveli. Also the State Government had accorded sanction for the staff and other amenities to each Court as mentioned in the said Government Order. Also the State Government had accorded sanction for the staff and other amenities to each Court as mentioned in the said Government Order. Further, in G.O.(Ms.) No.1060, Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 02.12.2013, the State Government had revalidated G.O.(Ms.) No.731, Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 03.10.2012 under Article 50 of the Tamilnadu Financial Code Vol.-I. 12. It comes to be known that the newly sanctioned Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, is functioning from 10.01.2014 FN, at Salem. As on 30.06.2014, there were 112 Vigilance and Anti Corruption cases, pending on the file of the Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem. 13. In the present case on hand, although, the occurrence had taken place on 27.11.2001 and nearly 13 years have rolled by, there appears to be no significant progress in regard to the examination of witnesses on the side of prosecution in the main case. 14. Per contra, as on date, witnesses PWs.1 and 2 were already examined and LW3-Mr.V.Natarajan, is yet to be examined as PW3, before the trial Court. It is to be borne in mind that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there can be no stay of trial. As a matter of fact, the trial of Corruption Cases, are to be conducted as expeditiously as possible. But in the instant case on hand, there appears to be snail / tardy progress in regard to the conduct of trial of the main case in Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2014 (Old Spl.C.C.No.45 of 2003 on the file of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem). 15. At this stage, this Court aptly points out that a litigant is mortal, but, a litigation is an immortal one. The present case is a befitting example for such an inordinate delay in regard to the conduct of trial of main case proceedings. 16. 15. At this stage, this Court aptly points out that a litigant is mortal, but, a litigation is an immortal one. The present case is a befitting example for such an inordinate delay in regard to the conduct of trial of main case proceedings. 16. In view of the fact that the date of occurrence was on 27.11.2001 and this Court taking note of the fact that nearly 13 years have elapsed, and also bearing in mind an important fact that the trial of the present main case should be conducted in an expeditious fashion, this Court based on Equity, Good conscience, Fair play and to prevent an aberration of justice, directs the Learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Salem, to conduct the trial proceedings of the main Spl.C.C.No.18 of 2014, pending on his file, preferably on a day-to-day basis, keeping in mind the ingredients of Section 309 Cr.P.C., by examining the witnesses concerned and to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible and to report compliance to this Court, without fail. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition, is disposed of.