Honble Y.R. MEENA, J—By this petition, petitioner has prayed that in this case complaint was filed in Feb. 1977, till today only the charges are framed against Lala Ram, that means prosecution has taken 15 years only in framing charges. When the State is not serious in prosecuting the petitioner the proceedings be quashed. 2. In this case a complaint was filed on 28.2.77 for the offence under sec 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The allegation against the accused was that on inspecting the shop of the petitioner, some irregularities were found by D.S.O. Shri Het Ram, in respect of distribution of sugar. 3. Complaint was registered and process was issued, charges were framed against accused in 1978, thereafter, the case was time and again adjourned till Sept. 1983. On 25.10.83 A.P.P. has submitted an application to implead Lala Ram as accused. That prayer was allowed but Lala Ram was served after three years i.e. on 26.6.86. The witnesses Rugha Ram and Het Ram were summoned The charges were framed against Lala Ram on 7.7.88 means about 2 years have been taken in framing the charges against Lala Ram. The case was time and again adjourned to examine the prosecution witnesses specially Rugha Ram and Het Ram. Prosecution has failed to examine Rugha Ram. I also perused the order sheet from Dec. 1991 onwards, the witnesses were not present on the dates fixed by the Court. 4. In M/s Munshi Ram Ram Niwas V/s. Collector, Food and Supplies Department (1) their Lord ships have taken the serious view-in case the State is not serious in pursuing the case and delayed the proceedings for which it has no explanation and observed in Para 9 as under— During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though a criminal prosecution is pending against the appellant Ram Niwas but no effective progress has been made in the case except filing of challan. It appears to us that the State is not serious in pursuing the criminal proceedings and even other wise more than 10 years have already elapsed to the alleged commission of the offence. It would be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the case. We, therefore, direct to drop the criminal proceedings launched and pending against the appellant Shri Ram Niwas in the present matter." 5. It would be against the interest of justice to further continue any criminal proceedings in the case. We, therefore, direct to drop the criminal proceedings launched and pending against the appellant Shri Ram Niwas in the present matter." 5. In the case in hand, in all there are 29 witnesses. Complaint was filed in 1977 against the petitioner. In 1983 A.P.P. filed an application requesting that Lala Ram be impleaded as accused. The application was allowed but he was served only in 1986. Charge was framed against him in 1988. He prayed in July, 1988 that he wants to cross-examine all the 29 witnesses. Summons were issued to Rugha Ram and Het Ram Only Het Ram has been examined so far, still 28 witnesses are left to be examined or cross-examined by Lala Ram. With this speed, the case will not be completed in another 15 years. This shows that State /Prosecution is not interested in conviction of the petitioner in this case. 6. Hence, the proceedings against Pema Ram, petitioner is quashed.