JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 27.3.87 of Chief Judicial Magistrate and order dated 18.3.89 of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. 2. The only question for consideration in this petition is whether charge framed on 27.3.87 be quashed and proceedings be dropped against the petitioner. The facts to be stated in short are that one complaint was filed by one Nathmal against the petitioner alleging that petitioner misused 7 bags of cement which were meant for repair of the office of Navyuvak Mandal. The matter was investigated by Tehsildar. The Tehsildar in his report has given the verdict in favour of the petitioner that he has not used any bag of cement for his personal use which was meant for the use of Navyuvak Mandal. Inspite of that, charge was framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Against that order, the petitioner filed revision in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge has not entertained the petition on the ground that no revision lie against the charge. Against that order and the order of Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a petty matter of 7 bags of cement, even Nathmal (PW 4) the Complainant who was the chairman of Navyuvak Mandal, stated on oath in the Court that no complaint was filed against the petitioner for misappropriation of 7 bags of cement which were meant for repair of the office of Navyuvak Mandal. He also drawn my attention to the report of Tehsildar which is in favour of the petitioner. 4. Apart from the facts stated above, the complaint was filed in the year 1979 while the charge was framed on 27.3.87, which means the prosecution has taken 10 years in framing of charge. Now, we are in the year 1992, after a period of more than 13 years the case is only at the charge stage. The petitioner has otherwise also faced criminal proceedings in these 13 years and suffered in facing criminal trial for the petty matter of 7 bags of cement and it is yet to be decided whether the petitioner used those bags of cement for his personal purposes. 5. The petitioner has otherwise also faced criminal proceedings in these 13 years and suffered in facing criminal trial for the petty matter of 7 bags of cement and it is yet to be decided whether the petitioner used those bags of cement for his personal purposes. 5. In this view of the matter in the interest of justice, the proceedings should not be continued. Hence, I quash the charge. The proceedings be dropped.Petition allowed. *******