ORDER : The Petitioner/Accused has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil to proceed with the trial in Special Case No.7 of 2014, pending on his file on day-to-day basis and to complete the same. 2. According to the Petitioner, while he was serving as Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, Kanyakumari Division of the State of Tamil Nadu at Nagercoil, he was falsely trapped by the respondent/complainant and a case in Cr.No.3 of 2013 was registered on 25.04.2013. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a charge sheet on 28.07.2014 against him in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the Learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and the same was taken on file in Special Case No.7 of 2014. 3. It is represented on behalf of the petitioner/accused that the summons was ordered to be issued to L.W.1 for the hearing on 04.02.2015 and that prosecution has cited 31 LWs in the charge sheet, but L.W.1 had appeared before the Court and he was examined only on 22.07.2015 i.e ( after 1 year 5 months and 18 days). Further, the trial Court ordered issuance of summons to L.W.2 and posted the matter to 13.08.2015 for examining L.W.2 on the side of the prosecution. Although 5 months and 5 hearings had gone by, the respondent/complainant had not taken any steps to issue summons to L.W.2 for his examination. Further, the matter stood posted to 03.12.2015 for examining L.W.2 and thereafter, at the request of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Accused, short dates were given and the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2015, 17.12.2015 and 21.01.2016 for the purpose of examination of defacto complainant as L.W.2. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is to retire on 31.05.2017. Therefore, prays for the conduct of the trial of Special Case No.7 of 2014 on the file of trial court on day-to-day basis and to complete the same. 5. In response, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submits that summons was issued to L.W.2, defacto complainant requesting evidence on 13.08.2015, 10.09.2015 and 08.10.2015 earlier. But he was not in a position to attend the Court on those dates. 5. In response, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submits that summons was issued to L.W.2, defacto complainant requesting evidence on 13.08.2015, 10.09.2015 and 08.10.2015 earlier. But he was not in a position to attend the Court on those dates. However, on the remaining hearing dates, on 05.11.2015, 03.12.2015 and 10.12.2015, L.W.1, one A.Arockiya Raj was ready. But, he was not examined due to administrative reasons as the Learned Judge was on Other Duty on 05.11.2015 and local holiday was declared to the trial court on 03.12.2015, moreover, Deputy Legal Advisor was on casual leave on 10.12.2015 and that the case was posted to 17.12.2015 for the examination of L.W.2. 6. Continuing further, it is the stand of the respondent/complainant that unfortunately the residence of L.W.2 at Chennai was worst affected by the recent flood and because of natural calamity, he had not appeared before the trial court on 17.12.2015 and now, L.W.2 is ready to depose before the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Nagercoil on 21.01.2016. 7. This Court had heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent/complainant. 8. At this stage, it is to be pointed out that 'Speedy Trial' is imbibed under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. A speedy trial is a constitutional requirement and that apart, the ingredients of Section 309 of Cr.P.C are to be read in a harmonious fashion, in the considered opinion of this Court. If the trial against an accused in a given case is not completed within a reasonable time, it amounts to violation of the right of speedy trial guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision in Chikkanna V. State of Karnataka reported in 1992 (1) Crimes page 701 at special page 703 (Kant). 9. To put it succinctly, the 'right to speedy trial' flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India, which includes the stage of investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The State is obliged to provide speedy trial as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1369 . 10. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that a Court of Law is to exercise its available powers under Sections 309, 311 & 258 Cr.P.C to effectuate the right of speedy trial. 11. 10. At this juncture, this Court pertinently points out that a Court of Law is to exercise its available powers under Sections 309, 311 & 258 Cr.P.C to effectuate the right of speedy trial. 11. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that L.W.1 was examined on 22.07.2015 and now, the case is posted for examination of L.W.2 on 21.01.2016 and also this Court taking note of the entire attendant facts and circumstances of the present case in an encircling fashion, comes to an resultant conclusion that the Special Case No.7 of 2014, pending on the file of Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil is to be disposed of at an early date in the interest of Equity, Fair Play, Justice, Good Conscience and even as a matter of Prudence, directs the Learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, to dispose of the pending part-heard Special Case No.7 of 2014 on his file within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this court without fail. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.