AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) IN all the four writ applications the point involved is the same and the relief prayed by all the petitioners are also same and similar and Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners has advanced his argument in common. Accordingly, all the writ applications were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioners in these writ applications is for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and the prosecution against them in connection with G.R. No. 256 of 1991 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 21 of 1991 registered under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat only on the ground that their right to speedy trial as warranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged on 19/03/1991 whereas the charge sheet was submitted against three accused persons on 30/09/1996 and, thereafter, on 07/01/2003 a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. It is submitted that the criminal proceeding has remained pending for more than 14 years without any fault on the part of the petitioners which has resulted in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the prosecution against the petitioners should be quashed.
(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of "Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. " has held in sub -para -8 of paragraph -20 of the said judgment that the core of speedy trial is protection, against incarceration. An accused who has never been incarcerated can hardly complain. At any rate, he must show some other very strong prejudice. The right does not protect an accused from all prejudicial effects caused by delay. Its core concern is impairment of liberty.;