Judgment R.C.P.Sinha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the investigation of Bench P.S. Case No: 9.9) 74 dated 20th September, 1974, registered against him under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the basis of a report made by Shri U.K. Jha, the then Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar, Arrah. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was a Firm known as "Messrs Gupta Cement Supply Company", at Behea, in the district of Rhojpur, which was a licensee under the Bihar Cement Control Order, 1972, hearing licence No. 10 of 1972 of which the petitioner was the proprietor. A raid was conducted by the supply authorities in the night between 19th and 20th of September, 1974 at about 1.40. a.m., and it was found that the father of the petitioner was storing cement in an unauthorized place and that be failed to produce licence on demand by the authority. Thereafter a report was made by the Assistant Supply Officer to the Officer-In-charge of Behea Police Station on the basis of which first information report was drawn up and a case under Sec. 7 of the Act was registered against the petitioner, and investigation was taken up. 3. The main ground on which the petitioner seek to challenge his prosecution is that the investigation though take up in the month of September, 1974, was still continuing and no charge-sheet was submitted till the filing of this writ application. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that having been violated in this case, the prosecution of the petitioner is fit to be quashed. It was also been contended that the word "trial" as used in Article 21 also includes investigation. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Madheshwardhari Singh and another V/s. State of Bihar. Learned Standing Counsel-II has fairly conceded that this case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. In this view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner has to be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel-II has fairly conceded that this case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision. In this view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner has to be quashed. 6. In the result, the application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner and the investigation in Behea P.S. case No.9 of 1974 (G.R. Case No. 1899 of 1974) pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arrah, are hereby quashed.