JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under section 482, Cr.P.C., invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a request to quash the criminal proceedings pending in Case No. 137/82 against the accused-petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 2. JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under section 482, Cr.P.C., invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a request to quash the criminal proceedings pending in Case No. 137/82 against the accused-petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this petition, briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Bhilwara filed a criminal complaint against the accused-petitioner on the ground that he inspected establishment of the accused-petitioner on 23.1.1982 and he took sample of curd being sold by the accused-petitioner and, on its analysis at the Laboratory, the same having been found to be adulterated, for his prosecution under section 7 r/w. Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and this complaint was filed on 6.11.1982 against the accused-petitioner resultant upon which after the necessary particulars and ingredients of the alleged offences were explained to and the plea of the accused-petitioner was recorded, since then, at present, this is third inning of examination of witnesses who are being ordered to be re-summoned and examined repeatedly on the plea that the Presiding Officers of the trial Court are being transferred and replaced one after another and no officer has so far been able to complete the trial single handed and, hence, the accused-petitioner filed an application before the trial Court with a request that since the proceedings were pending right from 6.11.1982 and, inspite of the fact that the main aim, object and purpose of economic offences being to complete the trial of the accused-persons expeditiously, on the other hand, there is exceptional and inordinate delay being perpetrated with change of each and every officer and there is no end of the trial in sight and, consequently, it was requested that criminal proceedings so pending against the accused-petitioner be quashed but, this plea did not find favour with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and, vide his impugned order dated 21.10.1997, while observing that since, due to frequent transfers of the Presiding Officers, so far the trial of the case could not be completed single handed by any one Presiding Officer and, therefore, in view of interpretation of Section 326(3), Cr.P.C., implicitly since the succeeding Presiding Officer could not use and act upon the evidence recorded in the case by his predecessor in office and hence every time de novo trial was being ordered and attempted to be tried which has not as yet seen the light of the day nor it is likely to see in near future, resulting in dismissal of the prayer of the accused-petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the learned P.P. 4. So far as the factual position giving rise to the present petition is concerned, there is no dispute about it. It need hardly be mentioned that the sample of the curd being sold by the accused-petitioner was taken by the Food Inspector on 2311982 and, after necessary formalities were completed, a formal criminal complaint came into being and the same was lodged as early as on 6.11.1982 and since then, this is third time that de novo trial has been ordered to proceed with on 12.8.1997 and so the completion of the trial at the hands of the present Presiding Officer is also not as yet in sight and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the Single Bench decisions of this Court rendered in Brahma Nand Agrawal &, Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 85, as well as Anil Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan, 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 699, has submitted that even delay in completion of the trial ranging from seven years and more has been considered to be fatal to the prosecution in similar circumstances and in the case of Anil Kumar (supra) the learned Single Judge, while referring to number of cases in which delay ranging between seven to nine years has also been taken to be fatal and, consequently, it has been submitted that, in the instant case, when the accused-petitioner was called upon to face the hardship and agony of protracted trial twice and consequent upon still change of the Presiding Officer, the latter's having ordered for de novo trial for the third time, without any rhyme or reason or fault on the part of the accused-petitioner, he has been called upon to withstand and suffer the agony of hardship of facing trial third time and there is no guarantee at all that the trial shall be completed even in the third round ordered by the Presiding Officer and, in all probabilities, this process is bound to be repeated time and again without its end in forcible future and, consequently, the accused-petitioner is being deprived of his life and liberty and he is also made to suffer mental, physical and financial hardship besides social stigma in perpetuity and it has resulted in violating and invading his fundamental right guaranteed u / Art. 21 of the Constitution to face expeditious trial without any delay. 5. Hence, it has been submitted that the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the developments that have taken place so far and the future uncertainty about the completion of the trial, as above, in case the trial is yet allowed to be continued, it is nothing but a glaring example of abuse of process of Court and hence it is in the interest of justice that these proceedings be quashed. 6. However, the learned P.P., looking to the mandatory provisions of law, has attempted to support the impugned order opposing the present petition. 7. 6. However, the learned P.P., looking to the mandatory provisions of law, has attempted to support the impugned order opposing the present petition. 7. After giving a considerate thought to the contentions as raised from both sides and on consideration of the developments and the facts of the case culminating into present petition right from 23.1.1982 and, subsequently, on lodging of present criminal complaint, on 6.11.1982 and the related proceedings conducted by the various changing Presiding Officers of the trial Court, it may be observed that the accused-petitioner is being forced to face third inning of his trial and yet there is no guarantee that the Presiding Officer ordering for de novo trial in the third instance may be successful in completing the trial without calling upon the accused-petitioner to undergo rigour of fourth trial. 8. In these circumstances, so also held in the decision of Brahma Nand Agarwal and Anilkuamr (supra), in the instant case, more than 15 years have passed since the accused-petitioner is being prosecuted before the trial Court and, resultantly, he has been forced to undergo mental, physical agony and so also the financial burden suffering . socially in reputation and, as a result, in case the trial is yet allowed to be proceeded with, without any end in sight it is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court and a manifest injustice to the accused-petitioner warranting quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against the accused-petitioner and hence this petition is found to be well merited deserving its acceptance. 9. On the basis of above discussion, this petition is hereby accepted and the criminal proceedings pending in criminal case No. 137/82 under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused-petitioner are hereby quashed with immediate effect and, consequently, the accused-petitioner shall stand discharged from his bail bonds.This petition along with its connected stay petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******