JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1 Bharatpur in Criminal appeal No.2 of 1988 )whereby he directed the trial Court to have a de novo trial as against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 25.4.1974 Food Inspector D.S. Sharma, took a sample of vegetable ghee from the co-accused Chhitarya, and the same was sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The Public Analyst found that the sample was not in conformity with the prescribed standard except the fact that the sample was found to be rancid. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst a complaint under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was lodged by the Food Inspector on 27.7.1974 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur against Chhitarya. Subsequently, a cognizance was also taken against the petitioner by the learned C.J.M. on 10.9.1975. Thus there was protracted trial for about 16 years and thereafter the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 11.3.1987 convicted both Chhitarya and the petitioner firm under Section 7/16 of the P.F.A.Act. The petitioner firm was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/-. Both the convicted persons went in appeal which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bharatpur who found that the whole trial was vitiated, as such, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused including the petitioner firm were set aside vide its judgment dated 5.4.1989 and he further remanded the case to the trial Court for denovo trial. It was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that after summoning of the petitioner on 10.9.1975, the learned trial Court should have recorded the evidence afresh, in the presence of the petitioner but he failed to record the evidence afresh and decided the case of the petitioner firm on the evidence which was recorded by the trial Court prior to the appearance of the petitioner firm and accused before the trial Court. The learned appellate Court therefore, found that the trial was vitiated as against the petitioner and so the case has remanded back to the learned trial Court. It has not been disputed that the sample was taken on 25.4.1974 and the petitioner firm has been made an accused in this case by the order of the learned C.J.M. on 10.9.1975. The learned appellate Court therefore, found that the trial was vitiated as against the petitioner and so the case has remanded back to the learned trial Court. It has not been disputed that the sample was taken on 25.4.1974 and the petitioner firm has been made an accused in this case by the order of the learned C.J.M. on 10.9.1975. the petitioner is alleged to be the manufacturer of the vegetable ghee, sample of which was taken by the food Inspector, from co,accused Chhitarya. 3. From the facts, mentioned above, it is thus clear that the petitioner firm was made an accused in this case after about one and half year from the date of inspection and it has been deprived of its right vested in it according to the provisions contained in the Food Adulteration Act whereby a copy of the Public Analyst report is provided to be supplied to the accused so that he may raise objections if any, against the report and may send his sample to the Central Laboratory if he is not satisfied from the report of the Public Analyst. But no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. In this view of the matter the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable right vested in it and this circumstance itself is sufficient to acquit the accused petitioner and it was not necessary to proceed with a de novo trial as against the petitioner in as much as this circumstance is, therefore, sufficient to quash the proceedings because if de novo trial is held then the above mentioned infirmity and defect cannot now be cured and the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted from the charge. 4. For these observations I find support of the case decided by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 19/86 & 116/86 S.K. Ahuja & another v. State & Others . This order dated 19.111986 in S.K.Ahuja's case was based on the principles laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 970 , (Municipal Corporation v. Gheesa Ram) . Moreover, a look on the facts shows that the proceedings are related to an inspection which is said to have been conducted in the year 1974. This order dated 19.111986 in S.K.Ahuja's case was based on the principles laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1967 SC 970 , (Municipal Corporation v. Gheesa Ram) . Moreover, a look on the facts shows that the proceedings are related to an inspection which is said to have been conducted in the year 1974. The counsel for the petitioner submits that after the expiry of 16 years it will not be fair and just to have a de novo trial as against the petitioner because speedy trial of the case is a fundamental right of the accused and if the trial is a protracted one and if the same is continued for years together then this delay be a good ground for quashing the proceedings. Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Bihar v. Uma Shankar (AIR 1981 SC p. 641) and K.K. Tiwari v. S.P., CBI, Raj. & Anr. (1989 RCC p.249) and T. J. Stephen v. Palle Bottling Co.(P) Ltd., (1988 (Supp) SCC p.458) . As said earlier the sample of vegetable ghee was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst because the sample was rancid. In State of Rajasthan v. Krishan (1983 RLR p.428) it has been observed that with the lapse of time chances of increase of rancidity in oil cannot be ruled out. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of M.C. Jaipur v. Chiranjilal (1983 RLR p.530) . 5. In the present case also it cannot be ruled out that the rancidity in the sample developed due to the reason that it was examined after a great delay so the petitioner and the other co-accused could not be held guilty on the ground that rancidity was found in the sample. The learned Sessions Judge in deciding the appeal, completely ignored the aforesaid aspect of this case and erroneously directed the trial Court for de novo trial but for the reasons given above no useful purpose shall be served, if the trial Court initiates de novo trial. 6. For the reasons given above, the present proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge in deciding the appeal, completely ignored the aforesaid aspect of this case and erroneously directed the trial Court for de novo trial but for the reasons given above no useful purpose shall be served, if the trial Court initiates de novo trial. 6. For the reasons given above, the present proceedings are liable to be quashed. This petition is, therefore, allowed and I set aside the judgements of the subordinate Courts and the entire criminal proceedings pending in the Court of C.J.M. Bharatpur in criminal care No. 167/1979 (State v. Chhitarya are quashed and the petitioner alongwith Chhitarya are held to be innocent and they are acquitted from the charge levelled against them.Petition Allowed. Proceedings Quashed. *******