Judgment N. K. JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated 25. 10. 1983 whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Section 317 of the Essential Commodities Act in Cr. case No. 47/83 (72/77 did ). ( 2 ) BRIEF fact; of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 13. 10. 1976, during inspection the D. S. O. Shri Hetram Awawal, found some irregularities in the distribution of sugar of five months between March, 1976 to July 1976 in Gramin Sahakari Samiti. On this Rupa Ram filed a complaint against one Pema Ram on 28. 2. 1977 and the process was issued and charges were framed against him in the year 1978. Thereafter vide order dated 25. 10. 1983 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted the prosecution to register a case against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the E. C. Act, and to implead Lala Ram as an accused, and ordered to call the accused through; summon. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25. 10. 1983, the petitioner has filed this Misc. petition. ( 3 ) MR. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner has been wrongly framed on 25. 10. 1983. He also submits that the petitioner has denied the charge, and for one reason or the other the two witnesses Roopa Ram and Hetram have not been examined as yet and the case is pending since 1977. He further submits that the charge framed against the main accused has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 4th September, 1992 on the ground that the case has not been completed for 15 years, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner may also be quashed. ( 4 ) MR. Ojha, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order but could not dispute the above facts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the order passed in Misc. petition No. 439/91 dated 4. 9. 1992. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that a guilty person should not escape but at the same time his trial should complete within a fair and reasonable time. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the order passed in Misc. petition No. 439/91 dated 4. 9. 1992. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that a guilty person should not escape but at the same time his trial should complete within a fair and reasonable time. It is to be seen that delay has been cause on, account of the accused or by the prosecution, and for balancing conflicting rights and duties court is to see that a person accused in crime are not indefinitely be harassed, for completing the trial. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, initially no allegation was levelled against the petitioner anywhere in the complaint filed-against Pema Ram. Admittedly, the proceedings arise out of the incident dated 13. 10. 1976 and case against the petitioner has been registered in the year 1983 and during all this period for one reason or the other, no witness viz. P. Ws. I Hetram and P. Ws. 2 Roopa Ram have been examined. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is responsible. Admittedly the delay is not caused on account of the accused rather it has been caused by the prosecution side. Therefore, pursuing criminal proceedings against, the petitioner after a lapse of 15 years from the date of incident is not in the interest of justice and fair trial. Thus, the congnizance taken against the petitioner is not sustainable that too when the charge framed against the main accused Pema Ram has already been quashed by this Court in S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 439/91 decided on 4th September 1992. Under these circumstances, this Court under the inherent powers to secure the ends of justice can set aside the order of taking cognizance. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25. 10. 1983 of learned Additional C. J. M. Merta is set aside passed in case No. 47/83 (72/77 old ). Petition allowed.