JUDGMENT 1. - It is really shocking that even after two decades the trial of the present case which is of summary nature, could not be concluded and the concerned Courts have proceeded in a most un-satisfactory and leisurely manner in the trial of the case. 2. The facts of the case, as given out in the petition, are that business premises of firm Jadgish Prasad Prakash Chand, Lalsot was inspected by the Enforcement Officer on January 21, 1974. On the charge that in stock register receipt of 41/2 drums of crude oil was not shown an FIR No. 11/74 came to be lodged against the petitioner at Police Station, Lalsot. After investigation, the police submitted a negative report, which is popularly known as `Final Report' (FR). However, the concerned Magistrate, dis-agreeing with the final report, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. All the petitioners had appeared in the trial Court in the year 1977 and it took more than 16 years in stating as per the petitioners, substance of the accusation/was stated/read over on January 3, 1994. Even thereafter, the list of witnesses was not produced by the Additional Pubic Prosecutor till October 20, 1994. Thereafter, only one witness has been examined. In such state of affairs, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the proceedings. Reliance is placed on Suresh Chand Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan, (1995 RCC 393) and Chote Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan [1992 (2) RLR 98] , 3. This Court, no doubt, is slow in quashing proceedings in matters relating to Economic Offences; but there are glaring and peculiar circumstances in the case compelling to allow this petition. 4. It cannot be disputed that the delay in trial of the case is extra-ordinary and it is un-explainable by the prosecution. There is no allegation of black-marketing and the offence relates to maintaining of stock register properly. Even after framing charge, the case has not made much progress as stated above. After two decades in such a matter, calling upon the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances, to enter upon defence is bound to cause prejudice to them. 5. There is no allegation of black-marketing and the offence relates to maintaining of stock register properly. Even after framing charge, the case has not made much progress as stated above. After two decades in such a matter, calling upon the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances, to enter upon defence is bound to cause prejudice to them. 5. I am convinced that the petitioners' right to speedy trial has been infringed in this case and for the reasons stated, the prosecution launched against them is liable to be quashed and it is quashed herewith. The petition is accordingly allowed. 6. copy of this order by sent to the concerned trial Court for doing needful.Petition allowed. *******