ORDER Heard Sri Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel (Law Officer) for Vigilance Investigation Bureau. 2. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), has prayed for setting aside order dated 20-04-2011 passed in Special Case No. 94 of 1990 (arising out of Vigilance P.S.Case No. 51 of 1990). By the said order, learned Special Judge, Vigilance - I, Patna has framed charges against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Sections120(B) r/w 467, 468, 471 & 477A of the I.P.C., Sections 420, 468, 477A of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, corresponding to Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Sri Naresh Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of framing of charges primarily on the ground that without disposal of his petition filed for discharge, charges have been framed. He has further argued that there was no material for implicating the petitioner in the present case and on the ground of merit also the order of framing of charges is liable to be set aside. 4. In this case, in view of order dated 17-12-2012, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and brought on record ordersheet(s) of the court below from the beginning till 02-04-2011, whereas the certified copy of order by which charges were directed to be framed i.e. order dated 20-04-2011 has already brought on record in the main petition. 5. Sri Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for Vigilance Department submits that it is a case relating to misappropriation of government fund by public servant as well as private individuals. The F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1990 and after thorough investigation, chargesheets were submitted against number of accused persons and finally, supplementary chargesheet was also submitted on 09-06-1994. Since in the case, there were number of accused persons, adequate time was consumed in getting the appearance of the accused persons completed. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been accepted in paragraph – 4 that appearance of accused persons has been completed on 05-01-2001 and police papers were supplied to the petitioner on 07-03-2005. Since in the case, there were number of accused persons, adequate time was consumed in getting the appearance of the accused persons completed. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been accepted in paragraph – 4 that appearance of accused persons has been completed on 05-01-2001 and police papers were supplied to the petitioner on 07-03-2005. He submits that even though police papers were supplied in the month of March, 2005 to the petitioner, accused persons were not taking any sincere effort to avail remedy as provided under the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, finally, the case was fixed for hearing on discharge petition by order dated 10-01-2011 and next date was fixed to 15-01-2011. Thereafter, again and again the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the accused persons for hearing on discharge petition and finally charges were framed on 20-04-2011. Sri Sharma, learned senior counsel for Vigilance submits that even in the first paragraph of the petition, the date of filing of discharge petition by the petitioner has not been mentioned, however; this submission was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that discharge petition was filed on 15-01-2011. Sri Sharma points out by referring to order dated 15-01-2011 that it does not indicate that on the date, the petitioner had filed any petition for discharge. 6. Be that as it may, fact remains that in the present case, F.I.R. was lodged in the year 1990 and there were number of accused persons, who were forwarded to face trial. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner himself has admitted that appearance in the case was complete on 05-01-2001 and also that police papers were supplied to the petitioner on 07-03-2005. Once in a case pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance), supply of police papers was complete, next step was to fix the date of charge. Of course, there is statutory provision granting liberty to an accused to file a petition for discharge, as prescribed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., the conduct of the petitioner itself shows that only with a view to delay the framing of the charges he had not taken step for filing discharge petition, whereas, ordersheets, which have been brought on record, indicate that number of accused persons had filed petition for their discharge. Even the order dated 10-01-2011 says that next date was fixed for hearing on different petitions of discharge on 15-01-2011, as requested by learned counsel for defence. Once the case was already fixed for hearing on discharge petition that too in a case where police papers were supplied long back in the year 2005, it is difficult to perceive the reason for filing alleged petition for discharge on 15-01-2011. However, fact remains that ordersheet on 15-01-2011, which has been brought on record, does not indicate the date of filing of such discharge petition by this petitioner. Moreover, if there is a provision enshrined in the Cr.P.C. for availing opportunity for filing discharge petition, it does not mean that if one does not avail that opportunity, subsequent stage may not come. Once police paper was supplied in the year 2005, had there been any ground for discharge, the petitioner would have filed such petition immediately thereafter. After such a belated stage that too which is not reflected from the ordersheets, the plea, taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had filed discharge petition, does not appear to be just and proper. Moreover, if in a criminal case, if charge is framed, it is deemed that trial has commenced. After commencement of trial, it is not advisable for the superior court to interfere with the same, otherwise it will amount to interference with the trial, which is completely in domain of the trial court. Moreover, the petitioner has not brought on record the proforma of charge, wherein charges have been framed against the petitioner or other accused persons. In any event, keeping in view the fact that F.I.R. was lodged long back in the year 1990 and the case was still at the stage of charge, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the trial may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay, preferably; within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While proceeding with the case, the trial court is required to take-up this case at least once in a week. 8. With above observation & direction, the petition stands dismissed.