JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. in which it has been prayed that the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 97/88, State v. Anil Kumar , in which the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Parbatsar has ordered on 4.10.1996 for de novo trial, may be quashed. 2. I have heard the matter at admission stage. The facts, in brief, are that Mahipal Sharma, Food Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Kukanwali, Distt. Nagaur submitted a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar on 21.7.1988 for the offence punish,able under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act alleging that on 16.4.1988 he visited the shop of the petitioner where he found selling food articles. On visiting the firm he purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from the petitioner and obtained a receipt of the said purchase from him. The sample was divided into three parts and sealed. Sanction was obtained from local health authority Nagpur and as the sample was not in accordance with the standard prescribed in rules framed under the PFA Act, complaint was submitted after obtaining sanction from the local health authority. 3. The trial proceeded at snail's pace and charge was framed on 2.2.1991 against the petitioner for offence under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act. The case was posted for prosecution evidence. It may be relevant to note that the accused himself appeared for the first time on 20.8.1990. From the order sheets of the Court below I find that the accused himself absented on 13.6.1991 and 17.12.1993 but he was granted fresh bail during the trial on both the occasions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that PW 1 Mahipal was examined on 1.12.1990 and charge was read over to the accused petitioner on 2.2.1991 but the procedure was changed and on 20.10.1993 M.M. Nayar PW I was examined. Thereafter no witness turned up and the learned Magistrate again started de novo trial on 4.10.1996. Therefore, according to him there has been much delay in the trial and the petitioner is entitled for an order under section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the proceedings pending for more than 8 long years. He submitted that the speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused under the Constitution and the order dated 4.10.1996 is passed in utter abuse of process of law. He submitted that the speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused under the Constitution and the order dated 4.10.1996 is passed in utter abuse of process of law. He has prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned PP has opposed the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited number of citations out of which I may cite following:- (1) In Madan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) All India Cr.L.R. 859 in a case of PFA Act delay of four years in completing the trial in a case under section 7/16 of the PFA Act was found sufficient to quash the proceedings. (2) In Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) All India Cr.L.R. 918 in a case of PFA Act the proceedings were quashed as they were pending for more than 11 years. (3) In Sikander v. State of Haryana, 1991 (2) All India Cr.L.R. 962 proceedings under PFA Act were quashed because of delay of seven years. (4) In Darshan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 247 the proceedings were quashed in a case under section 7/16 of the PFA Act when offence was committed six years ago. (5) In Pritam Singh v. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 397 the proceedings for offence under section 7/16 of PFA Act were quashed and the petitioner already undergone agony of trial for about six years. (6) In Sunderlal alias Surinder v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1992 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 404 a delay of seven years in investigation and trial in a case of PFA Act was held sufficient to quash the proceedings. (7) In the petitioner was facing the agony of trial for more than 8 years in a case under sections 420, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and it was held that it amounted to denial of speedy trial and hence the proceedings were quashed. (8) In Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 122 in a case of PFA Act trial did not end even after 12 years and was taking unnecessary and unreasonable time. It was not due to the dilatory tactics by the accused. (8) In Prahlad v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 122 in a case of PFA Act trial did not end even after 12 years and was taking unnecessary and unreasonable time. It was not due to the dilatory tactics by the accused. This prolonged and protracted trial was quashed by Hon'ble D.C. Dalela, J. (9) In Mahendra Singh Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1991 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 588 the trial continued for six years in a case of PFA Act and it was held to be a fit case in which the proceedings should be quashed. (10) In Kewal Krishan v. The Govt. Food Inspector Union Territory, Chandigarh & Anr., 1991 (1) All India Cr.L.R. 865 a trial was pending for last six years for the offence under section 7/16 of PFA Act and the proceedings were quashed. (11) Brahma Nand Agrawal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 85 , in which the trial Court passed successive orders of de novo trial and the prosecution was not producing witnesses for examination in Court. It was held that right of speedy trial was violated and the proceedings were quashed since the case was lingering for about six years. (12) In Pradeep Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 87 the petitioner was facing trial under PFA Act and was appearing in the Court since 1983. The prosecution was not producing witnesses for 2 1 /2 years and the Court had passed order of de novo trial. It was held that the petitioner's right of speedy trial was violated and proceedings were quashed. (13) In Keshri Mal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 658/96, decided on 9.9.1996 the proceedings were quashed as they were pending since 20.11.1985 after a lapse of about 10 years. 7. In the case in hand the proceedings have been pending for more than 9 years as the sample was taken from the petitioner on 16.4.1988. He has undergone the agony of trial for a very long period and I find it to be a fit case in which the proceedings should be quashed on the basis of delay. 7. In the case in hand the proceedings have been pending for more than 9 years as the sample was taken from the petitioner on 16.4.1988. He has undergone the agony of trial for a very long period and I find it to be a fit case in which the proceedings should be quashed on the basis of delay. The petitioner was not at fault for such a long trial rather he has been appearing with the prosecution as I have already stated, it was only twice that he was absent on more than 60 dates of hearing which were fixed in the case. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in State v. Anil Kumar, Cr. Case No. 97/88 , pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Parbatsar are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******