{1} SB CRIM MISC. PET NOS. 1149/2009 & 1022/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R (1) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1149/2009 R.P. YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & (2) S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1022/2009 BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Date: 16.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. N.L. Gupta and Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** Since both the misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 12/1996- State of Rajasthan Vs. R.P. Yadav & Others, pending before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. The facts of the case of R.P. Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan are taken as leading case. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Assistant Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Jaipur, the audit of the office of the petitioner was conducted by the audit party of Accountant General, Rajasthan and the auditors {2} SB CRIM MISC. PET NOS. 1149/2009 & 1022/2009 found some irregularities in the payment of Rs. 2,76,620/- to various news papers for publishing display advertisement. During audit, the auditor prepared a para showing irregularities in payment to some of the news papers. On the basis of the audit report, the Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation (for short 'the RSBI') registered FIR No. 123/1994 on 15.07.1994 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, the RSBI filed a charge-sheet on 30.03.1996 in the Court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption Cases), Jaipur City against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court below took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 15.05.1996 and ultimately charges were framed on 06.12.2003 after hearing the rival submissions of the respective parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the co-accused Bhanwar Singh (the petitioner in connected Misc. Petition No. 1022/2009 herein) had earlier filed a criminal misc. petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 170/2005 for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him and the aforesaid misc. petition {3} SB CRIM MISC. PET NOS. 1149/2009 & 1022/2009 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.03.2005 directing the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case expeditiously and decide the same preferably by fixing the case on day to day basis for recording the prosecution evidence. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite directions of this Court given in the misc. petition earlier filed by co-accused Bhanwar Singh to expedite the hearing of the case, more than 4 years period has elapsed but the hearing is not concluded as yet. Thus, the right of speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed and the petitioner is being harassed and humiliated for never ending of the trial. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is fixed for final arguments and in such eventuality, as the matter is fixed for final arguments, this Court is not satisfied with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and no case for quashing the criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No. 12/1996 is made out. However, the trial Court is expected to hear the final arguments and decide the case expeditiously. {4} SB CRIM MISC. PET NOS. 1149/2009 & 1022/2009 Consequently, both the criminal misc. petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/