JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Mahendra Kumar Modi, K.K. Modi, Sridhar Gupta and H.C. Goel have filed this application in this Court on 26-5-1983, praying that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 284 of 1982, State v. M.K. Modi and Ors., with respect to Crime No. 56 of 1975 of P.S. Modi Nagar (Criminal Case No. 974 of 1978), pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Ghaziabad. u/s 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act be quashed, whereupon this Court by its order dated 26-5-1983 stayed further proceedings in the case and issued notice to Union of India through the Vegetable Oil Product Controller for India, New Delhi. 2. The case of the accused applicants is that they have violated G.S.R. (Government Statutory Rules) 502 E dated 22-11-1973 passed by the Controller, appointed under the Vegetable Oil Product Control Order, 1947, The applicants were manufacturing Vanaspati (edible oil) by the firm styled as Klodi Vanaspati Manufacturing, Company. The applicant No. 1 Mahendra Kumar Modi is Managing Director, applicant No. 2 K.K. Modi is General Manager of the said company whereas applicant No. 3 Sridhar Gupta is a Chief Chemist and applicant No. 4 H.C. Goel is Chemist of Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company, stationed at Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad. The applicants were using mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati and by the aforesaid G.S.R. 502E they were prohibited for using mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati Charge sheet has alleged that inspite of the aforesaid prohibition order the applicants continued to use mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati in violation of the aforesaid order. Consequently, a case was registered at P.S. Modi Nagar against the Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company and the applicants, u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The investigation followed and a charge sheet was submitted by Sri Dashrath Singh. Inspector, Vigilence, in August 1977, whereupon a criminal case No. 284 of 1982 was registered in the court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad for the violation of the aforesaid prohibition order dated 8-5-1975. 3. The applicants on 12-4-1978 filed an application before the C.J.M. Ghaziabad for their discharge. On 6-5-1978 the aforesaid application came up before the C.J.M. for disposal. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid application, an application was filed by the prosecutor, praying that another G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 be added in the charge sheet in the substance of the allegation. On 6-5-1978 the aforesaid application came up before the C.J.M. for disposal. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid application, an application was filed by the prosecutor, praying that another G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 be added in the charge sheet in the substance of the allegation. However, the learned Magistrate took view that prayer for adding G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 to be considered at the stage of recording the statements of accused u/s 245 Code of Criminal Procedure and of framing charges. 4. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, C.J.M. Ghaziabad dismissed the application of the applicants on 22-8-1978. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the applicants filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 6142 of 1978 in the High Court which was rejected on 7-8-1981 by a Bench of this Court. The applicants thereafter preferred an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside on 22-3-1982. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Magistrate to first dispose of the application of the Prosecuting Officer dated 6-5-1978 before framing the charges. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties rejected the application dated 6-5-1978 and proceeded to frame charges against the applicants. In this way, the applicants have challenged the order dated 9-5-1983 passed by the C.J.M. Ghaziabad by means of the present application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and likewise the State of Uttar Pradesh has challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 9-5-1983 by preferring Revision No. 1583 of 1983, against the applicants and M/s. Modi Vanaspatt Manufacturing Company, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad. The said revision was admitted by this Court on 11-3-1987 and it was connected with the present Criminal Misc. Application No. 4350 of 1983, u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. I have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for Mahendra Kumar Modi and others and also Sri G. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the State. 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants Mahendra Kumar Modi and others that the matter in question is not of a such serious nature and even if the violation of G.S.R. 502E dated 22-11-1973 is admitted by the applicants they are likely to be convicted u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for which maximum sentence as provided in the Act is five years and fine. But the learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the maximum sentence u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act as five years and fine and minimum sentence three months and flue was prescribed in the year 1975 when the occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place but it was also specified in the Act that for special reasons the sentence may be less than three months and fine The occurrence in this case had taken place in the year 1975 and since then more than 16 years have rolled on and under the circumstances great injustice would be accrued to the applicants if further proceedings are continued against them for the petty offence with which they are charged. It was further submitted by him that the C.I.M. has rightly rejected the application filed by the State for inclusion of G.S.R. 696E by its order dated 9-5-1983 relating to the prohibition of use of mustard oil in the manufacture of Vanaspati It was further submitted by him that the said violation pertain to GSR 696E dated 24-12-1974 and under the circumstances the joinder of G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 with GS R 502E dated 22-11-1973 would have serious y prejudiced the applicants in defence as the charge sheet in the case was filed in the month of August 1977 for the violation of only G.S.R. 502E dated 22-11-1973. He further submitted that the trial court has given good reasons in rejecting the prosecution application of 6-5-1978. 7. I have also gone through the order of the Magistrate dated 9-5-1983 rejecting the aforesaid application for inclusion of G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 in the charge sheet and I am fully satisfied that the said application was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the circumstances the revision No. 1583 of J983, preferred by the State against the order dated 9-5-1983, deserves to be rejected. 8. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the applicants on T.J. Stephen v. Parle Bottling Co. 1988 ACC 181. Shahabuddin Qureshi v. State of U.P. 1988 ACC 303, Sriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory, Arunachal Pradesh 1988 ACC 359. 9. The sum and substance of the rulings cited above is that undue delay in prosecution of the accused brings above injustice to the accused. 1988 ACC 181. Shahabuddin Qureshi v. State of U.P. 1988 ACC 303, Sriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory, Arunachal Pradesh 1988 ACC 359. 9. The sum and substance of the rulings cited above is that undue delay in prosecution of the accused brings above injustice to the accused. The crux of the rulings is that the prosecution of the accused should not hang over his head for a considerable period. In the present case it is pointed out that the matter does not relate to an offence of serious nature. The prosecution is based for violation of GS.R 502E dated 22-11-1973 and G.S.R. 696E dated 24-12-1974 by use of mustard oil by the applicants in the manufacture of Vanaspati. It is common knowledge that mustard oil is not at all injurious to health and prior to the passing of the order the use of mustard oil was permissible. Under the circumstances, even after going for a trial the charges are proved, the accused on conviction, are likely to be given a sentence of fine alone or sentence of imprisonment for few months Under the circumstances I do not consider it just and proper to allow the prosecution of the applicants u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act to continue for an offence which had taken place about 16 years before The learned Counsel for the State vehemently argued that in this case the delay caused for the trial was at the instance of the accused. However, I feel that not only the accused but also the prosecution are responsible for this undue delay as the prosecution would have filed an application before the Chief Justice for early disposal of the case as even the revision against the order dated 9-5-1983 passed by the C.J.M. was filed in the year 1983 Surprisingly enough, it would be just and proper to mention here that the State did not care to file counter-affidavit in Criminal Misc. No. 4350 of 1983 preferred by the accused-applicants and in which the High Court has issued notice to them on 26-5-1983. 10. In the result, the Criminal Misc. No. 4350 of 1983 preferred by the accused-applicants and in which the High Court has issued notice to them on 26-5-1983. 10. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Application No. 4350 of 1983, preferred by Mahendra Kumar Modi and others, is allowed and the proceedings, u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, in Criminal Case No. 284 of 982, pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate 1st, Ghaziabad are quashed and Criminal Revision No. 1583 of 1983, preferred by the State of U.P. against M.K. Modi and others, is dismissed.