JUDGMENT 1. - By his impugned order dated 3.8.96 the teamed Special Judge (Economic Offences), Jaipur has charged the petitioners with the offences punishable u/Sections 7 and 8 read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1954 for violating the provisions of Clauses 3 and 10 of Rajasthan Petroleum Product (License and Control) Order, 1990 and Clauses 3 (3), 4 (c) and 9 of L.P.G. (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988. 2. On examination of the impugned order in the light of the material on the record of the lower Court I find that in the report of the Dy. S. P., Sanganer, search and seizure memos prepared by Kishan Singh, Dy. S.P. and other Investigating Officers, statements of Lekh Raj, Tara Chand, Sarwan Kumar, Om Singh H.C. Chotey Lal, Sita Ram, Bhanwar Lal, Subhash Chand, Rajiv Bhargava, Satya Prakash recorded u/Section 161, Cr.P.C., information given by Sahib Singh petitioner u/Section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the discovery and recovery of a large number of gas cylinders, with tampered, damaged and broken seals from unauthorised godowns in Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur more than prima facie evidence existed to charge the petitioners not only with the aforementioned offences but also with several other offences under the Indian Penal Code. Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Rajasthan Weight and Measures Act, 1954, which the Investigating Agency had reported to have been committed by the petitioners. From the material available on the record of the lower Court it stands prima facie established that after having obtained a license under the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 on 10.4.90. Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and Rajasthan Weight and Measures Act, 1954, which the Investigating Agency had reported to have been committed by the petitioners. From the material available on the record of the lower Court it stands prima facie established that after having obtained a license under the Indian Explosive Act, 1884 on 10.4.90. from the Chief Controller of Explosives to store compressed gas in cylinders in Khasra No. 1605 at Sanganer town, Renwal Road, Jaipur under the business name of M/s. Saraswati Gas Service, Sanganer, and having been authorised to have a floor stock of 450 cylinders and 50 regulators, and also having assured the licensing authorities and the consumer public at large through his acceptance of the terms and conditions of the license issued to him that the supply of gas would be made in accordance with the provisions of the law in force from time to time, Sahib Singh the licensee petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy with others including his subordinate employees, which the other petitioners are, to defraud and cheat the consumer public at large by supplying to them gas cylinders of weight less than that prescribed and represented by the petitioners but at the same time making them to pay for more weight. The petitioners are prima facie found to have tampered, damaged and broken seals of the sealed cylinders in order to take out the liquefied gas from them with the view of the preparing more gas cylinders with gas filled therein. There is thus absolutely no force at all in this petition which appears to have designedly been presented only to prolong the proceedings of the trial. 3. There is thus absolutely no force at all in this petition which appears to have designedly been presented only to prolong the proceedings of the trial. 3. Before parting with the case I would like to observe in the light of the duty cases upon this Court by Section 4213, Cr.P.C. that the offence in this case was committed on 26.8.93, charge sheet was submitted on 26.10.93 but the discharge of the statutory duty of the Court to read over and explain the substance of accusation to the petitioners took as many as three years in a case trial summarily in accordance with the provisions of Sections 260-265, Cr.P.C. The Court appears to have subordinated its statutory duty to dispose of such cases as speedily as possible, in order to respond to the cry of the accused as well as of the victim of the alleged crime for justice, to the mere request of the Counsel for the petitioners for grant of time to prepare himself for arguments before charge. Even, thereafter, no witness could be examined till date. If a case, statutorily mandated to be tried summarily, is not disposed of expeditiously in terms of the relevant provisions of law, it makes a mockery of the legal procedure and system and reflects upon the competence, Will and determination of the personnel making the justice delivery mechanism. The learned trial Judge is expected to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. 4. The petition is dismissed summarily. The record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith by special messenger. The delay caused in the trial is attributed to the petitioners.Petition dismissed. *******