JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this petitioner under Section - 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash pending criminal proceedings against them in case No. 562/83 (State v. Prabhu Dayal and others) in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemka Thana. The petitioners are seeking the above prayer on the ground of delay in trial, alleging that their fundamental right of speedy trial has been infringed. 2. In Order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, necessary facts may be stated as under : Food Inspector, Shri Devi Singh, took sample of 'Vanaspati Ghee' (Veena Brand) from a sealed tin from petitioner No. 1, Prabhu Dayal, Partner of M/s. Kailash Chand Deen Dayal Kasera of The vendor-Prabhu Dayal, at the time of taking sample, produced cash memo-invoice to the Food Inspector saying that the 'Vanaspati Ghee' in question was purchased from M/s Dungarsi Das-Ram Deo Pansari or Neemka Than. As the sample was taken from a sealed tin, petitioner No. 4 Prabhu Dayal Pansari was also made an accused in the complaint which was filed by the Food Inspector on March 17, 1993. As per the prosecution, the sample of 'Vanaspati Ghee' did not conform to the standard prescribed, hence, it was adulterated. It is note-worthy to mention hear that in the complaint itself, this fact has been mentioned that the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from a sealed tin. 3. Initially, the complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners on the day of filing the complaint i.e. March 17, 1983 and issued bailable warrants to secure attendance of the accused. After service, petitioner No. 1 Prabhu Dayal appeared in the Court on April 19, 1983 and moved an application under section. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sending the second sample to Central Food Laboratory for examination. The matter remained pending on the said application and also for securing attendance of other accused persons since April 27, 1983 till July 22, 1986 and about 25 dates were fixed during this period. On 22.7.86, the learned Magistrate heard arguments on the above application and directed to send second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. The matter remained pending on the said application and also for securing attendance of other accused persons since April 27, 1983 till July 22, 1986 and about 25 dates were fixed during this period. On 22.7.86, the learned Magistrate heard arguments on the above application and directed to send second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for examination. On December 8, 1988 all the accused were present in Court and thereafter, the case was posted for recording pre-charge evidence of the prosecution. The case was adjourned from time to time as no prosecution witness appeared for evidence and after 30 dates or so the statement of Food Inspector was recorded as P.W. 1 on June 11, 1992. On this date, the learned A.P.P. filed on application under section. 20A of the Act for taking cognizance against General Manager, Ram Nagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. the manufacturer of the 'Vanaspathi Ghee' in question. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned on more than 25 dates till the record of the case was sent by the trial Court and till then, notice could not be served on the newly added accused, namely, the General Manager of Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. 4. In the back-ground of the above factual aspect the question that arises for decision is, whether it is a fit case for quashing pending criminal proceeding against the petitioners on the ground of delay ?The above facts demonstrate : (i) that the sample was taken on 2.11.81 from a sealed tin, (ii) the complaint was filed on 17.3.83 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and cognizance was taken on the same day, (iii) the petitioner No. 1 appeared before the court on April 19, 1983 and moved an application under section. 13(2) of the Act for examination of second sample by Central Food Laboratory, (iv) after 25 dates, arguments were heard on the above application on 22.7.86 and it was directed that second sample be sent to Central Food Laboratory for examination, (v) on 8.12.88 all the accused had appeared before the Court and 20.1.89 was fixed for recording pre-charge evidence of the prosecution, (vi) for 30 dates or so, not a single prosecution witness appeared and the statement of P.W. 1 - Mahesh Bhattacharya was recorded on June 11, 1992. On this date, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the manufacturer of the Vanaspathi Ghee', namely, the General Manager, M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. After taking above cognizance, the matter has been listed in the court on 25 dates or so, but still the service has not been effected on the newly added accused. 5. Thus, it is clear that more than 14 years have passed since the date of taking sample. The complaint was filed after 17 months of taking sample. The application filed by petitioner No. 1 on 19.4.83 was decided after more than 3 years on 22.7.86 after adjourning, the case and during this period, about 25 dates were fixed in the case. On 8.12.88 the trial Court fixed 20.1.89 for recording pre-charge evidence. After about 31 years, only one witness, namely, Mahesh Bhattacharya was examined on 1 ?.6.92 and in between about 30 dates of hearing were fixed. Since 11.6.92 more than 25 dates have been fixed in the case, but no progress could be made as the General Manager of M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. who was added as a co-accused on 11.6.92 has not been served as yet. 6. It is also crystal clear that the sample of Vanaspathi Ghee' was taken by the Food Inspector from a sealed tin. Petitioner No. 1 had purchased Vanaspathi Ghee' from a local dealer M/s. Dungarsidas Ramdev Pansari and M/s. Dungarsidas Ramdev Pansari had purchase sealed tin of `Ghee' from the manufacturer namely, M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. 7. From the above facts it can safely he held that the petitioners have already suffered a lot and their fundamental right on speedy trial has also been infringed. 8. Normally, this Court is slow in quashing criminal proceedings in criminal case on the ground of delay for the offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act; but there is special feature in this case and it is that the sample has been taken from a sealed tin. It is also the prosecution case that sample was taken from a sealed tin and admittedly none of the petitioners is the manufacturer of Vanaspathi Ghee'. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 had purchased `Ghee' from petitioner No. 4, M/s. Dungarsidas Ramdev Pansari and petitioner No. 4 purchase it from M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. It is also the prosecution case that sample was taken from a sealed tin and admittedly none of the petitioners is the manufacturer of Vanaspathi Ghee'. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 had purchased `Ghee' from petitioner No. 4, M/s. Dungarsidas Ramdev Pansari and petitioner No. 4 purchase it from M/s. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. The cash memo and receipts have been produced on record and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied, has added the manufacturer of Vanaspathi Ghee' i.e. General Manager of the manufacturing company as a co-accused. 9. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, on the one hand, the petitioners have suffered a lot on account of delayed trial infringing their right of speedy trial, the chance of their conviction is very remote, rather there is no possibility of their conviction on the other hand, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of court and would amount their persecution.Consequently, the petition is allowed and pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.Petition Allowed. *******