JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners who are facing trial under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings due to special circumstances. 2. In order to appreciate the contention raised in this petition some necessary facts may be given :On 6th September, 1979, the then Enforcement Inspector visited the shop of the petitioners and finding some irregularities, a complaint was filed after 4 years on 13th December, 1983 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Then the matter was delayed as the prosecution witnesses were not turning up to give their statements at pre-charge stage. The Enforcement Inspector appeared to give his statement at pre-charge stage on 8th January 1993 i.e. after more than 9 years of submission of the complaint. His statement however, remained in compliance for want of some documents and articles. When no progress was made in the trail of the case, the petitioner approached this Court under section 482 Cr.RC. for quashing the proceedings of the case. The said petition was disposed of by the then V.S. Dave J. on January 21st January 1994 with the following observations: "I would have no hesitation in quashing the proceedings in this case in the first instance but the statement of the witnesses since have half been recorded I would like to give one more opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence, if it is serious about it and take the case to the logical conclusion. I would, therefore, give three months time from the date of receipt of this order to summons the witnesses and complete the case even if it is taken day to day provided the prosecution making laches the trial Court may give a demand. During to the case for want of presentation. Let a copy Of this order be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister for information and to issue such necessary directions as he deems proper. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the learned C.J.M. to act in accordance with law. With the above observations, the Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of accordingly." The above order makes it clear that three months' time was given to the prosecution to get the case completed by providing evidence and the trial court was also directed to take the case day to-day if the prosecution produces evidence. With the above observations, the Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of accordingly." The above order makes it clear that three months' time was given to the prosecution to get the case completed by providing evidence and the trial court was also directed to take the case day to-day if the prosecution produces evidence. It was further made clear in unequivocal terms that if the prosecution is found making laches, the trial Court may give a decent burial to the case for want of prosecution. Thus, an outer limit of three months was fixed to complete the trial and a duty was cast on the prosecution to produce evidence in time and in case, the evidence is not produced the case was to be given a decent burial. 3. After the aforesaid judgment, the case was listed before the trial Judge on 9.3.94. On that day, an application was moved by the A.RP under Section-65 of the Evidence Act for taking secondary evidence. The next date was fixed as 18.3.94 for arguments on the said application as well as for recording prosecution evidence. On 18.3.94, the application filed by the A.PP. for secondary evidence was dismissed. The statements of PW. 1 Bal Shankar Sharma and RW. 2 Tejpal were recorded at pre-charge stage. On that date, the learned A.PR expressed desire to examine one more witness, namely, Murlidhar at pre-charge stage. On the request of learned A.RR summons were issued to the said witness and 1.4.94 was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence. On 1.4.94, the witness Murlidhar was not present and summons were not served upon him. The Court therefore, again summoned the witness Murlidhar and summons were given to A.PR for service and next date was fixed as 3.5.94. On 3.5.94, again the witness Murlidhar could not be examined as he was not present in the Court. It was also noticed that summons were not issued as per earlier order, and the next date was fixed as 20.5.94. On 20.5.94, the witness Murlidhar again did not appear and as such, his evidence was closed and the next date was fixed for arguments on framing charge. On the next date i.e. 26.5.94, arguments on framing charge were heard and next date was fixed as 7.6.94. It appears that on 7.6.94, the charges were framed against the petitioners and thereafter, till today, not a single prosecution witness has been examined. On the next date i.e. 26.5.94, arguments on framing charge were heard and next date was fixed as 7.6.94. It appears that on 7.6.94, the charges were framed against the petitioners and thereafter, till today, not a single prosecution witness has been examined. In such state of affairs, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash the proceedings. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order of this Court dated, 21.1.94 is explicit and leaves no room for doubt. As per this order, the trial Court was to conclude trial within three months from the date of receipt of that order and a duty was cast on the prosecution to produce evidence with a direction to the trial Court to take the case day to-day in case the evidence is produced by the prosecution. It was also made clear in the said order that if there was an laches on the part of the prosecution in producing the evidence, the trial Court should give a decent burial to the case. It cannot be disputed that the said order has not been complied with and the learned PR is not in a position to controvert the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. As stated earlier, the petitioner's shop was inspected in the year 1979 and more than 15 years have passed since then but, not a single prosecution witness has been examined after the charge was framed. The earlier ouster of this Court has not been complied with. In these circumstances, there is no other alternative except to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under section- 482 Cr.PC in order to secure the ends of justice.Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in criminal case No. 302/83 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, under Section-3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act are hereby quashed for the reasons mentioned hereinabove.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court immediately.Petition allowed. *******