JUDGMENT 1. - This petition, Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings against him, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh (Dist. Alwar) in Criminal Case No. 209/1993, State v. Brijendra & Anr. Under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prayer for quashing the proceedings is based on the ground of undue delay in trial of the case. 2. It is alleged that sample of edible oil was taken by the Food Inspector on April 14,1978. The said sample was sent for chemical examination and the same was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of the oil. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and one Mahendra Kumar on September 26,1979 in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, `Rajgarh. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate took congnizance against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The charge was framed against the accused on November, 29,1989 that is after more than 10 years of filing the complaint. Even after framing charge not a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. The petitioner has filed certain copies of the order sheets upto 10.01.1995 and from these order-sheets, it is clear that not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gives out that even thereafter till today not a single prosecution witness has been examined. The question, therefore, is whether the trial should be allowed to continue even after 16 years, specially when the accused are not at fault for the delay ? 3. It is well settled by now that speedy trial in a Criminal Case is a fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After considering various judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, this aspect was considered by me in Chote Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) Page 77 . After considering various judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Court, this aspect was considered by me in Chote Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) Page 77 . After discussion of the various judicial pronouncement, the proposition of law for quashing criminal trial on the ground of delay was laid down as under:- (i) A speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India is no more in dispute. But, the question whether this fundamental right has been violated or likely to be violated on account of the delay in the trial will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no outer limit can be fixed in a general way for all the cases. (ii) While considering the length of delay, the Court will take into account the period consumed in the investigation of the case and the delay caused in actual proceedings in Court after filing of the charge-sheet. A speedy investigation and a trial are equally mandated both by the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (iii) While deciding such question, the Court shall take into account the working of the judicial system in India and the lack of satisfactory working conditions in judicial Courts includinglarger pendency and institution of the cases, inadequacy of judge strength and under staffing etc. (iv) ln a pending case to decide the question whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or any other appropriate direction be given to the trial Court to secure the ends of justice will depend on several factors to be taken in to consideration, such as, the gravity and seriousness of the offence, whether the delay was occasioned by the tactic or conduct of the accused himself, whether the accused objected at any stage when such delay occasioned, and whether the accused is prejudiced in his defence on account of the delay. (v) If the delay has caused prejudice to the accused in the conduct and his defence, the pending criminal proceedings should be normally quashed as in that situation it could be said that the accused has been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the trial is not fair and reasonable. (v) If the delay has caused prejudice to the accused in the conduct and his defence, the pending criminal proceedings should be normally quashed as in that situation it could be said that the accused has been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the trial is not fair and reasonable. (vi) In grave and serious offences against the society or in relation to Nation's economy, defence or security, the criminal proceedings should not be normally quashed on the ground of delay simplicitor without anything further. (vii) In trivial offences having no or very little impact on the society, quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of delay simplicitor shall be in the interest of justice as it will provide a room for serious and grave offences and will lessen the burden of the Court with heavy work load." . 4. It may also be stated here that at the relevant time when the sample was taken, the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 was punishable with imprisonment or fine and no minimum sentence of imprisonment was prescribed. In my view, the accused petitioner and co-accused have already suffered a lot in continuation of criminal proceedings against them for the last 16 years and their case is fully covered by the decision in Chote Lal Jain's case. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it is neither expedient nor in the larger interest of justice that trial of the case against the petitioner and the co-accused should be allowed to proceed even after 16 years, specially when not a single prosecution witness has been examined so far. As observed by the Apex Court of the country "While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detections of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go." 6. Though, the co-accused has not approached this Court for quashing the proceedings, but his case is at par to that of the petitioner. Though, the co-accused has not approached this Court for quashing the proceedings, but his case is at par to that of the petitioner. This Court, therefore, takes suo motu notice for quashing proceedings against him also. Consequently, it is held that it is a fit case in which the criminal proceedings against both the accused be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings against both the accused are hereby quashed. A copy of this order be sent immediately to the trial Court. Petition Allowed. *******