Criminal Miscellaneous No.4729 OF 1998 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----- 1.BAIDYA NATH SAH son of late Chhotelal Sah resident of Mohalla-Bahadurpur, P.S. & Dist.-Samastipur 2.Doman Paswan son of Sukhdeo Paswan, resident of Ward No.2, Bahadurpur, P.S. & Dist.-Samastipur. ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… ...…Opp. Party. -------- For the petitioners: Mr.Amitesh Kumar For the State: Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICERAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners, who are accused in RPF(SPJ)/Tr. No.4 of 1998 for the offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) had prayed for quashing of an order dated 1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Samastipur. By the impugned order, petition filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge was rejected. 2. By order dated 23.3.1998 the present petition was admitted for hearing. During the pendency of the present petition, further proceeding in Samastipur R.P.F.(SP) Case No.7/83. T.R. No.4/98 pending in the court of Sri R.P.Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Samastipur, was ordered to remain stayed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing has not raised any grievance against the order whereby his discharge petition was rejected. However, he has raised an objection that proceeding in the present case may not be allowed 2 to continue after expiry of such a long time. He submits that for the offence under the provisions of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act both the petitioners were made accused. Offence was committed some time in the year 1983. On the ground of delay, learned counsel for the petitioners is now challenging the entire proceeding. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that it is not a case in which prosecution can be alleged for delaying in conclusion of the trial. On the contrary, he submits that it is the petitioners, who themselves have delayed the proceeding by way of challenging the order of discharge which suffered with no error or infirmity. He further submits that the order whereby discharge petition was rejected i.e. order dated 10.2.1998 is completely in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate while rejecting his discharge petition has given specific reason. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has not at all questioned the impugned order. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that neither there is any error in the impugned order nor the petitioners are entitled to raise the grievance of infringement of their right of speedy trial in the present case on the ground of delay. It is true that right of speedy trial has been considered in several cases as an indefeasible right and, as such, in an appropriate case it is considered that if inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial has solely been occurred 3 due to laches on the part of the prosecution, one can raise his grievance. So far as present case is concerned. the prosecution appears to be very vigilant and it cannot be said that prosecution had delayed the conclusion of the present proceeding. In this case on 10.2.1998 learned Railway Magistrate had rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners with specific reason. The petitioners immediately rushed to this court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. Time without number it has been held that it is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases. 6. However, in view of the order dated 23.3.1998, passed by this court, proceeding in the court below was ordered to remain stayed and since then matter is pending. So far as pendency of the case before this court is concerned, it can be said as systematic delay and for such delay no benefit can be given to an accused, particularly, in a case where he himself had approached this court and got an order of stay. 7. n view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not think that the plea of the petitioners that their right of speedy trial has been defeated can be accepted. No benefit can be given to the petitioners for delay which has mainly occurred due to their conduct. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. Since petition has been rejected, the interim order dated 23.3.1998 whereby proceeding in the court below was ordered to remain stayed stands automatically vacated. Let this order and lower court records be transmitted 4 to the court below forthwith. Patna High Court, The 18th March,2010. Md.S.(NAFR) ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)