JUDGMENT 1. - "It is a sad reflection on the legal and judicial system that the trial of an accused should not even commence for a longer number of years. Even a delay of one year in the commencement of the trial is bad enough, how much worse could it be when the delay is as long as 3 or 7 or even 10 years. Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and there can be r ,o doubt that delay in trial be itself constitutes denial of justice."By making the above observations their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1979 SC 1360 ) extended the scope of Article 211 of the Constitution of India by including the speedy trial in its ambit as fundamental right of the accused. 2. In the instant revision, the fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused petitioner is to be judged. Impugning the order dated Feb. 22, 1997, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.RC., whereby at the fag end of the trial, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that the charge under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act be amended. 3. Admittedly, the complaint under section 77/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act) was filed on November 11, 1987. On Feb. 22, 1997 when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decided to dictate the judgment after hearing the arguments of the parties he found that charge under section 7/16 of the Act was wrongly framed and it required amendment. Thus, the charge was amended and prosecution witness was resummoned. 4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on Brahma Nand Agrawal and another v. State of Rajasthan, (1997 RCC 12.1) . In that case the proceedings under section 3 read with section 7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 .were pending since 9.8.11390 and cognizance was taken in the year 1991 and de novo trial was ordered on November 4, 1995 and case was taken for recording the prosecution evidence on June 14, 1996. This court quashed the proceedings of the said case by observing thus . This court quashed the proceedings of the said case by observing thus . "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." 4-A. In the instant also the petitioner is not responsible for delaying the trial of the case and he has suffered physical as well as mental agony. Right of speedy trial has been denied to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at the fag end of the case by ordering denovo trial. 5. Consequently, I allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order and trial of criminal case No. 585 of 1987 under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The accused is discharged from the offence under section 7/16 of the Act.Revision allowed. *******