Judgment :- 1. There are totally 13 accused in Spl.C.C.No.44 of 2014, pending on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases/Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur. All the accused are facing prosecution for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 120(B), 467, 468, 471, 420 altered to 409 r/w 109 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the offences are said to have been committed between the years 2001 and 2004 and the case, after investigation, has culminated in charge sheet dated 24.06.2009 and it was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2009 by the very same Court and it was transferred to the file of the Special Court at Madurai and numbered as Spl.C.C.No.113 of 2011 and once again it was transferred to the very same Court and renumbered as Spl.C.C.No.44 of 2014 and for not fault of the accused, the case is being dragged on. 3. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the accused are public servants and the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.6,8,10 and 11 respectively, are aged about 53 years, 57 years, 45 years and 59 years respectively and on account of long pendency of the case, they have been kept out of service and in fact, some of the accused, who have attained the age of superannuation, were also not allowed to retire and their services were extended and in fact during pendency of the trial, A.13 died and therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, prays for fixing a date for earlier completion of the trial and pronouncement of verdict. 4. Mr. C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has invited the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent and would submit that the prosecution is ready and willing to produce all the witnesses for completion of the trial, but on account of the boycott call given by the local bar coupled with the non-cooperative attitude of some accused, the trial of the case could not be proceeded with and also gives assurance that if all the accused cooperate for the trial, it can be completed at an early date. 5. 5. This Court, after hearing the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, is inclined to pass the following order: This Court, taking into consideration the age of the accused, who are public servants and they are also kept out of service by way of suspension/extension of service and considering the age and long pendency of the accused, is of the view that it will be suffice to give a direction to the Court of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases/Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur to give preference and dispose of the case at an earlier date. Therefore, the Court of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases/Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur is directed to expedite and complete the trial and pronounce the verdict as expeditiously as possible and shall also give preference in this regard. 6. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. In pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai has filed a detailed affidavit as to the steps taken to complete the cases filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act in various Courts and it is also taken and placed on record.