(1) BY this revision the accused petitioner has challenged the proceeding being G. R. No. 428 of 1976, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, arising out of Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26/02/1976.

(2) THE brief background of the case is that the then the Branch Manager of Madhyamgram Branch, of the United Commercial Bank filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, and the learned Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed the Officer-in-Charge, Barasat P. S. , to investigate the case by treating the complaint as FIR and the Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26-2-76 was registered. In the complaint it was stated that on 1/08/1972 a Savings Bank Account No. 2761/w was opened in the name of one Arun Saha at the Madhyamgram Branch and all the papers relating to the account of Arun Saha were filled in by one Samir Chakraborty, head clerk of that Branch of the aforesaid UCO Bank. The said account was opened in Savings Bank Ledger No. 10 and that was filled up by the said Samir Chakraborty and at that time D. K. Pal, Accountant of that Branch, was in supervision of that matter and the said account was opened with the initial cash deposit of Rs. 1,001/- and the relative pay-in-slip dated 1-8-72 was prepared by the petitioner but without any signature of the petitioner. The pass book was issued on the same date. Subsequently the entry of Rs. 1,001/- was changed into Rs. 7,001/ -. Such alteration was initialed by the Accountant D. K. Pal but in the supplementary the amount was correctly shown as Rs. 1,001/ -. So the final balance in the account was shown a Rupees 7,001/- instead of correct balance of Rs. 1,001/ -. The Supplementary book was checked by the Accountant on 4-8-72 as issued by T. B. Das, a clerk of that Branch. Such withdrawal was posted in the ledger by the petitioner and passed by the Accountant and the payment was effected. On 8-8-72, another Rs. 1,000/- was withdrawn and the same process was followed and the signature was verified by N. C. Das, the then Acting Manager, and the same was passed for payment by the Accountant. On 14-8-72 here was another withdrawal of Rs. 4,500/ -. The Signature of theaccount holder was verified by the Accountant and he passed it for payment and he also checked the supplementary book and signed it. On 8-8-72 the account holder sought permission to withdraw Rs. 4,875/- by a letter and on 12-8-72 the same was posted on record of that Branch but actually payment was effected on 14-8-72 i. e. before he expiry of 10 days notice. Subsequently on enquiry it was revealed that Arun Saha was a fictitious person and the account was opened in a fictitious name. On the reverse side of the withdrawal slip there were two signatures of the account-holder and by fraudulent means a sum of Rs. 6,500/- was Withdrawn though the initial deposit was Rupees 1,001/ -. So the Bank suffered a loss of Rs. 5,500/ -.

(3) ACCORDING to the revisional application, the name of the present accused petitioner does not appear in the FIR and he was only a posting clerk during the period making the relevant posting in the ledger relating to the opening of the account and withdrawal of various amounts by withdrawal slips and in each case the same was verified and passed by the Accountant. Although the case was initiated in 2/02/1976, till 9/08/1991, no charge-sheet was filed against the accused petitioner.

(4) MR. Jahar Lal Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that in view of the order passed by this Court on 19/09/1991, there was no further progress in this case before the trial Court. Mr. Roy submits that there is long delay in this matter for which the accused Petitioner suffers both mentally and physically and till 9/08/1991, no charge-sheet was filed. For his longdrawn proceeding, the petitioner not only suffered mentally and physically but also suffered financially and that agony and anxiety are always fighting into the core of the heart of the petitioner and he is on the tenter-hooks of uncertainty hovering between anxiety and sigh and with that passing every night. The provision of the Criminal Procedure Code also envisages an early hearing so that the litigant should know the result of his case to be relieved of sufferings. That is also the dictum of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this has been amply stated by the Supreme Court in the case of A. R. Antulay, reported in. 1 SCC 225 [LQ/SC/1998/269] , corresponding to AIR 1992 SCW 1872 : AIR 1992 SC 1701 [LQ/SC/1991/691] : 1992 Cri LJ 2717. Even in a subsequent decision in the case of Santosh De v. Archna Guha, reported inair 1994 SC 1229 , [LQ/SC/1993/667] the Supreme, Court again reiterated that every effort should be made to conclude the trial starting from the date of complaint so that the accused may know of his fate in the case. In the instant case, the Court was moved and the police initiated the investigation on 26/02/1976, and even in 1991 the matter could not see the light of the day. That is against the principle and/or dictum laid down in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has suffered so long for no fault of his own. In such circumstances, I find no reason to put a new lease of life to this matter.

(5) ACCORDINGLY, the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 428 of 1976 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, arising out of Barasat P. S. Case No. 73 dated 26/02/1976, are hereby quashed so far the petitioner is concerned. The revisional application is allowed. The accused petitioner is discharged from his bail bond.

(6) LET the lower Court records in connection with Crl. Revision No. 1129 of 1991 be sent down immediately in the Court below. Revision allowed.