ORDER : The entire criminal proceeding of Senha P.S. Case No. 70 of 1997 (G.R. No. 515/1997) in which the petitioner is being prosecuted on the charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is being sought to be quashed on the ground of denial to right to speedy justice as the petitioner is being prosecuted for the last more than 10 years. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, while was posted as the Block Development Officer, Senha, was given the authority to select the beneficiaries under Indira Awas Nirman Yojna and to pay advances to them. Village Badla Panchyat, Badla was also selected as a cluster village for providing benefit under the Indira Awas Nirman Yojna. 3. In course of time, several complaints were received to the effect that out of Rs.4000/- which was paid to the beneficiaries at the first instance, a sum of Rs.1000/-to Rs.3000/- had been collected illegally by the middleman. Some of the beneficiaries namely, Naresh Ram, Ramesh Ram and others also lodged the complaint that as soon as the agreement was executed, a cheque of Rs.4000/-was given and when it was encashed, Pradip Mahto forcibly took Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/-from them on the pretext of supplying bricks, but the bricks were never supplied. When the spot verification was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, the amount taken from the beneficiaries, was returned to some of them. Similar allegations were also received from the beneficiaries of Nawatoli, who also complained about taking of the money by one Dhirendra Mandal, Jan Sewak, when they were given Rs.4000/- as an advance. On the said allegations, first information report was lodged as Senha P.S. Case No. 70 of 1997. The matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 30/04/1999, against some of the accused persons namely, Dhirendra Mandal, Pradip Mahto and Raj Kumar Mahto. Much thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, upon which cognizance of the offences was taken against him on 10/11/2004. Much thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, upon which cognizance of the offences was taken against him on 10/11/2004. Subsequently, on 31/08/2005, 3rd charge sheet was submitted under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Much thereafter, the charges were framed on 12/11/2008. Till the filing of this case out of 17 witnesses, 7 witnesses had been examined, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is indicative of the fact that the trial has proceeded with speed of snail. It has also been pointed out that the other co-accused, against whom charge sheet has been submitted earlier, when were put on trial, were acquitted way back in the year 2005. Under the circumstances, this case has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the facts stated above, itself demonstrate it to be a case of right to denial of speedy justice as the prosecution in spite of passing of 10 years, has not been able to conclude the trial. Further more, the petitioner is being tried also for the offence under the P.C. Act, but the investigation has never been made by an Officer of the rank of Dy.S.P., rather, Dy.S.P., on the basis of the investigation made by the officer below the rank of Dy.S.P., has only submitted the charge sheet and, thereby, the entire prosecution for the offence under the P.C. Act, gets vitiated. Under the circumstances, it would be abuse of the process of the Court if the petitioner is further allowed to face the rigor of the trial. 5. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that there has been no doubt that the considerable time has been consumed by the prosecution in prosecuting this petitioner, but the proceeding has almost reached to a final stage as only a few witnesses have remained to be examined. 5. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that there has been no doubt that the considerable time has been consumed by the prosecution in prosecuting this petitioner, but the proceeding has almost reached to a final stage as only a few witnesses have remained to be examined. The witnesses, who have not been examined as yet, would be examined by the prosecution within a shortest possible time and under the circumstances, it was submitted that it would never be appropriate and proper to quash the proceeding at this stage. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, one may find that the prosecution has almost taken more than 5 years from the date of framing of the charge, but, still, all the witnesses have not been examined. However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, most of the witnesses have been examined and only a few witnesses have remained to be examined. In such situation, it would not be desirable to quash the proceeding at this stage. 7. So far submission relating to prosecution under the P.C. Act being vitiated on account of the fact that investigation has not been done by the officer of the rank of Dy.S.P., is concerned, I am not expressing any opinion at this stage, rather that issue is left open for the petitioner to raise the same before the trial court. 8. In the facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Application disposed of.