JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application seeking expeditious disposal of a proceeding in which charges were framed under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. 3. Despite service, no one appears on behalf of the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners are the accused in this case. The petitioner no.1 is a seventy one years old man who has to look after his ninety two years old mother. Although the impugned proceeding was initiated as far back as in January, 2013, till date the trial could not be concluded. Charges were framed in 2014. Since then the matter has remained pending. Except for one occasion, the petitioners were hardly responsible for the delay. On 21.02.19 the learned trial court fixed the next date on 03.02.2021 for evidence. If the learned trial court goes on in this fashion then the proceeding would never come to an end in the life time of the petitioner no.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that fixing a date nearly after two years was clearly not proper on the part of the learned trial court. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and have perused the revision petition. 7. It appears that there has been an inordinate delay in concluding the proceeding in the present case. The petitioners could be hardly faulted for this. 8. Besides anything else, fixing a date nearly after two years for taking evidence is not proper. It further appears that even on 25.10.2017, the learned trial court had fixed the next date on 21.02.19. This is not acceptable. 9. It is understandable that the learned trial courts are working under tremendous pressure of backlog of cases. However, there cannot be any justification for fixing successive dates in gaps of two years. One has to remember that the right to speedy trial of an Indian citizen is a fundamental right. 10. In the facts and circumstance, it would be fit and proper to prescribe a time frame for concluding the trial. 11. However, there cannot be any justification for fixing successive dates in gaps of two years. One has to remember that the right to speedy trial of an Indian citizen is a fundamental right. 10. In the facts and circumstance, it would be fit and proper to prescribe a time frame for concluding the trial. 11. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I direct the learned trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, preferably within a year from the date of the communication of this order. With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.