Dipak Misra JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The gravamen of grievance of the Petitioners in this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood because of order of suspension passed against the Petitioner No. 1 during which he was getting a meagre subsistence allowance and has reached the age of superannuation without being considered for promotion, extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain, and denial of speedy trial that has impaired their Fundamental Right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The asseverations pertaining to long delay in trial have been made on the constitutional backdrop leading to the prayer for quashment of the proceedings of Special Case No. 4 of 1993 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay.
2. Before we proceed to state the factual score, it is necessary to mention that this is not the first time that the Petitioners have approached this Court. They, along with others, had assailed the order of the High Court of Bombay declining to quash the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners and Ors. on the ground of delay in investigation and filing of charge sheet in three special leave petitions which were converted to three criminal appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal Nos. 176 of 2001, 177 of 2001 and 178 of 2001. This Court adverted to the facts and expressed the view that there was no justification to quash the criminal prosecution on the ground of delay highlighted by the Appellants in all the appeals. However, this Court took note of the allegations against two senescent ladies who were octogenarians relating to their abetment in the commission of the crime and opined that the materials were insufficient to prove that the old ladies intentionally abetted the public servant in acquiring assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and further it would be unfair and unreasonable to compel them, who by advancement of old age, would possibly have already crossed into geriatric stage, to stand the long trial having no reasonable prospect of ultimate conviction against them and, accordingly, on those two grounds, allowed the appeals preferred by them and quashed the criminal prosecution as far as they were concerned. The other appeals, preferred by the public servant and his wife, stood dismissed.
3. Be it noted, in the said judgment, while quashing the proceedings against the two ladies, this Court referred to the decision in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar 
MANU/SC/0640/1998 : (1998) 7 SCC 507 and observed that the trial was not likely to end within one or two y........