Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1239 of 2010 (5) dt.27-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.1239 of 2010 ====================================================== Binoda Nand Jha .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar And Ors. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 5 27-08-2012 The petitioner is an accused in Bhairabasthan P.S.Case No.71 of 1985 dated 21.07.1985 instituted for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . It has been stated that after submission of the chargesheet cognizance of the offence has been taken on 05.10.1985 and on 15.02.1989 charge was framed against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Since then, the trial is going on. Till date the prosecution could examine only two witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that by order dated 21.06.2012, during pendency of the case before this Court, the trial court has closed the prosecution case and fixed the matter for recording statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prayer in the petition is for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the aforesaid case pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhanjharpur as the petitioner’s right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of Patna High Court CR. WJC No.1239 of 2010 (5) dt.27-08-2012 India has been violated. In view of the law laid down by the seven Judge Constitution Bench decision, in case of P.Ramachandra Rao Vrs. State of Karnataka, since reported in 2002 (4) SCC 578 and the five Judge Constitution Bench, decision in case of Abdul Rehman Antulay Vrs. R.S.Nayak & Anr, since reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225 by the Apex Court it is neither advisable nor judicially permissible to prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of criminal prosecution. However, considering the fact that the case is of the year 1985 and the court below has already closed the prosecution case there is no reason as to why the matter may not be disposed of expeditiously. I, thus, direct the learned Magistrate who before whom the matter is pending to conclude the trial as early as possible, preferably within four months, from the date of communication/receipt of this order. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. The order may be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner B.Kr./- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 409

Statute Text:
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.