JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.6.96 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 9/90 pending for the offence under Sections 3 read with 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Assistant Director, Textile lodged a complaint on 10.11.98 which was sent to P.S. Basni for investigation. After usual investigation, the case was challenged against all the petitioners under Section 3 read with 7 of Essential Commodities Act on 9.8.90. The cognizance was taken on 5.1.91 and the case was listed for evidence. The petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of Case No. 9/90 pending against them may be quashed and same may be dropped because they have been attending the Court regularly since 1990. Orders for de novo trial have been passed again and again on account of the transfers of the Presiding Officers. Thus the petitioners have been put to continuous harassment since 1990 and there is no sight of the trial coming to an end. The total witnesses mentioned in the challan are 16. The petitioners have suffered mental agony for the last six years without any progress in the case and they are facing de novo trials due to transfers of the Presiding Officers, therefore, even the proceedings have become abuse of the process of the Court as it violates the right of the petitioners for speedy trial. Now again de novo trial has been ordered on 13.6.96 and order has been passed to summon all the witnesses again. In this way there has been no end of the trial which is pending since 1990. Petitioner Ramphal is attending the Court from Bhilwara and has suffered great loss of money as well as mental and physical harassment. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order sheets submitted alongwith the petition showing the proceedings conducted in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted to quash the proceedings which is now abuse of the process of the Court and violation of the petitioners' right to speedy trial which has been considered a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1360 Hussenara Khatun & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna and AIR 1987 SC 597 Menka Gandhi v. Union of India. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna and AIR 1987 SC 597 Menka Gandhi v. Union of India. It is argued that the procedure prescribed by law should be reasonable, fair and just. If the procedure deprives a person his liberty, that procedure cannot be said to be reasonable, fair or just. He further contended that the deprivation of the liberty by such procedure would be violative of the fundamental right under Article 2 1 and the petitioners are entitled for quashment of the proceedings. The procedure can be said to be reasonable, fair or just only when a speedy trial is ensured to the accused. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that there is no fault of the prosecution and de novo trial has been ordered on account of the transfers of the Presiding Officers because Section 326, Cr.P.C. does not apply to summary trials and the successor Presiding Officer cannot act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The petitioner also preferred petition against the order of taking cognizance and the proceedings remained stayed for about four months. It is further submitted that the direction may be given to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a period fixed by this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions by both the sides and also a decision in the case of Sarnpat Raj v. State of Raj. reported in 1996 Cr. Law Reporter (Raj) 794. 5. On perusal of the proceedings it is revealed that de novo trial was ordered on 4.11.95 and again it was so ordered on 13.6.96. After that, this case was taken up for recording the prosecution evidence on 14.6.96. Two witnesses were present and their statements were recorded whereas six witnesses were called for examination. Statements of three witnesses were recorded on 2.8.96. On the next date 3.8.96 only one witness was present and his statement was recorded. No other witness was present and the case was adjourned to 8.10.96 and 9.10.96. No witness was present on 8.10.96 though four witnesses were summoned by bailable warrants which were given to Addl. Public Prosecutor for service. On the other hand, report was received that the witnesses are not available on the addresses mentioned on bailable warrants. Bailable warrant of one witness was not received served or unserved. No witness was present on 8.10.96 though four witnesses were summoned by bailable warrants which were given to Addl. Public Prosecutor for service. On the other hand, report was received that the witnesses are not available on the addresses mentioned on bailable warrants. Bailable warrant of one witness was not received served or unserved. For the date 9.10.96 also no witness was present though four witnesses were expected to be present through service of bailable warrant. 6. The above proceedings reveal that the proceedings are making progress with snails pace. The bailable warrants are not being served even when these were given to APP for getting it served by all means. Orders for de novo trial have been made twice and the case is lingering on since 1990. the petitioners are attending the Court regularly and fully co-operating with the trial. It was only in the year 1991 that they preferred petition in the Court against the order of taking cognizance and the proceedings remained stayed for about 5 months. But thereafter, the proceedings never remained stayed by any order of superior Court. The delay has occurred due to orders of de novo trial and non service of the process issued by the Court and not attending the Court. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that speedy trial is not being conducted against the petitioners and the procedure cannot be said reasonable, fair or just. The petitioners are attending the Court for the last more than 6 years and so far have suffered physical harassment, mental agony and monetary loss. The petitioners are not found responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. I find that the case has remained pending for an unreasonable time and the petitioners' right to speedy trial has been violated in this case. The right to speedy trial which has been treated as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been breached by the procedure and the prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not deem it just and proper to fix a period and to issue directions to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within that period. 7. In the result, the petition is hereby accepted. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not deem it just and proper to fix a period and to issue directions to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within that period. 7. In the result, the petition is hereby accepted. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 9/90(4/91) pending against the petitioners in the Court of Special Judge, E.C. Act Cases, Jodhpur are hereby quashed.Petition accepted. *******