S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE accused applicants office bearers of Hindustan Lever Ltd, Mumbai have filed this petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing and setting aside the complaint filed by the non-applicant No. 1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mhow, under Sections 120b and 420 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 17th February 1913. non-applicant No. 1. Omprakash who carries on the trade of shopkeeper in Mhow purchased 10 sealed tins of four kg. or the Dalda Vanaspati manufactured by Hindustan Lever Ltd. Company Rs. 28. 70 per tin. It is stated that on each of the tins the net weight of the contents was mentioned as 4 kgs, It is also alleged that the weight of the empty tin of the same lot weighed about 440 gms. It is further alleged that on the request of the customer when the alleged tins purchased from the shop of firm Pannalal Kannihalal of Mhow the other non-applicant who is the dealer for selling of the said Dalda Vanaspati manufactured by the Company on being weighed it is found that the total weight of the tins including the container purchased in all the cases was less than 4. 440 kgs. On the said facts it is stated that in each of the tins purchased by the complainant about 300 gms of Vanaspati Ghee was found less than the net weight mentioned on the sealed tins. It is also stated that the aforesaid facts were brought to the knowledge of the Distributing Firm and the. Salesman of the Company. The said person did not respond on the complaint of the complainant. On the aforesaid facts, non-applicant No. 1 on 24-2-1973 has filed a complaint against the applicants as also the Distributor and the Salesman of the Company alleging that all the accused persons have conspired to defraud the public by selling less quantity of Vanaspati Ghee than the net weight mentioned on the sealed tins and prayed for taking action under Sections 120b and 420, I. P. C. against the alleged accused persons. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. as also the other material on record registered a criminal case against the appellants and the other non-applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420/34 of I. P. C. vide order dated 13-9-1973 and issued summons against the accused persons for their appearance in the Court. On appearance, the applicants have filed application under Section 245 (2) of the Cr. P. C. praying for the discharge of the accused persons and closing of the criminal case. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated. 1-9-1997 and rejected the prayer of the applicants. Aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate a Revision Petition No. 307/1997 was filed In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Mhow which was also dismissed vide order dated 18-11-1997. Aggrieved by the said orders of the JMFC Mhow and. A. S. J. Mhow the applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing of the criminal complaint filed against the applicants and the other accused persons and also for quashing and setting aside the orders impugned of the learned Magistrate and the A. S. J. Mhow. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. S. C. Bagadiya and Mr. H. S. Oberoi, learned Counsels for the applicants and Mr. B. N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 (complainant ). None appeared for non- applicant Nos. 2 to 4 and Mr. Salim, learned P. L. appearing for the non-applicant No. 5, State of M. P. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for applicants contended that from the evidence and the facts available on the record no case for committing any offence punishable under Section 420, I. P. C. is made out against the present applicants and the other co-accused persons for selling of lesser quantity of the Vanaspati Ghee than the net weight of the contents as mentioned on the sealed tins. The learned Counsel also contended that in view of the long pendency of the criminal case registered against the applicants and in view of the facts and the nature of the offences alleged against the applicants, the complaint deserves to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. The learned Counsel also contended that in view of the long pendency of the criminal case registered against the applicants and in view of the facts and the nature of the offences alleged against the applicants, the complaint deserves to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. ( 6 ) AS against this learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 (complainant) submitted that on the basis of the evidence and the other material available on the record a prima-facie case for framing of the charge under Section 420 read with Section 120b of I. P. C. is made out against the applicants and the other co-accused persons. As such, the case registered against the applicants cannot be dropped and the order of the Court taking cognizance for the said offences cannot be quashed at this stage of the case under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in cases of Gopal v. Kanniyalal Alok Mishra v. State of M. P. Surendera Kumar Jam v. Rajkumari and Others, and also relied on the decisions of other Honourable High Courts in cases of Dhanraj Jam and Others v. B. K. Biswas and Others, N. K. Narayan and Others v. V. Vidyadharan and Bhagwat Prasad Mohanti v. Kalaryi Mohanti and Others. ( 7 ) I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for parties and also carefully perused the record of the Trial Court. ( 8 ) ON perusal of the record; it emerged that at no stage of time the net weight of the contends and the empty container was measured despite the orders of the Magistrate dated 5-4-1975. The alleged sealed tins were deposited by the complainant in the Court alongwith his complaint and on the application of the complainant, by order dated 5-4-1973 the learned Magistrate directed the Food Inspector, Mhow to find out the net weight of the contents and its container weighing them separately after obtaining one sealed tin lying deposited in the Court and submit his report. But the learned Food Inspector did not open the seal and not submitted his report with regard to the not contents of the Vanaspati Ghee found in the sealed tin and the weight of the empty container used in the packing of the said contents. The Food Inspector (P. W. 5) as apparent from his report Ex. But the learned Food Inspector did not open the seal and not submitted his report with regard to the not contents of the Vanaspati Ghee found in the sealed tin and the weight of the empty container used in the packing of the said contents. The Food Inspector (P. W. 5) as apparent from his report Ex. P3 and his statement recorded under Section 202. Cr. P. C. had submitted his report only by weighing the alleged sealed tins together with the contents and the containers used for packing of the said Vanaspati Ghee. The learned Food Inspector, at the time of his report, took the weight of one empty tin of Dalda Vanaspati of the applicant Company produced by the complainant and on the basis of the weight of the said container, submitted his report stating that in nine tins out of the alleged ten tins the net weight of the Vanaspati Ghee was found to be less than 4 kgs the net weight mentioned on the said tins. On perusal of the report (Ex. P3), it is clear that the net weight of the 10 sealed tins together with the container was found different for each of the sealed tins. As per his report, the total weight of the 9 sealed tins, according to him, was found less than 4. 440 kgs whereas the weight of one of the sealed tins was found more than 4. 440 kgs. In view of the report (Ex. P 3) it is apparent that the total weight of the sealed tins vary in different packings and in view of the said facts it cannot be held that the net contents of the Vanaspati Ghee in the tins in question was less than the net weight mentioned on the said tins by taking into consideration the weight of one of the empty tins produced by the complainant of the same company. ( 9 ) IN view of the evidence of the complainant and the aforesaid facts available on the record, prima-facie no case of conspiracy for committing fraud with the customers by selling of the less Vanaspati Ghee than the net weight mentioned on the sealed tin is made out against the applicants and the other co-accused persons for taking action for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120b of I. P. C. ( 10 ) ON perusal of the record, it is also found that the disputed tins were purchased by the non- applicant No. 1 (complainant) from the shop of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 17th February 1973. The complaint was filed on 24-2-1973 and the learned Magistrate registered the case against the accused persons on 13-9-1973 and thereafter the case is pending at the stage of framing of the charges against the applicants till 4th August, 1998. On the ground of the aforesaid delay the complaint case pending against the applicants and the other co-accused persons deserves to be quashed. On this point the law is well settled in case of Sheela Borse, the Apex Court held that the fundamental right of speedy trial is implisive under Article 21 of the Constitution and the consequences of the violation of that right would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental rights. In case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another, the Apex Court has also pointed out that in all criminal prosecutions the right of speedy public trial which has a wide amplitude is now in alienable fundamental right of the citizen under Article 21 and is available in all criminal prosecutions irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. Relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, this Court in the following cases, Sajjan Singh v. State of M. P. Ramesh Kumar v. State of M. P. Chandoo v. State of M. P. Kallu v. State of M. P. and Anand Kumar v. State of M. P. quashed the prosecutions pending against the accused persons on the ground of inordinate delay. The present case is also pending with the Trial Court after its registration at the stage of the charge since 13-9-1973. The present case is also pending with the Trial Court after its registration at the stage of the charge since 13-9-1973. As such, in view of the aforesaid long pendency of the case on hand, the complaint filed by the non-applicants deserves to be quashed. ( 11 ) IN view of the facts and the evidence available on the record as stated above no prima-facie case for taking cognizance against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B. I. P. C. is made out and on this ground also as no fruitful purpose is likely to be served in continuing the said criminal case, the further trial of the pending criminal case against the applicants deserves to be quashed in the light of the decision of this Court in case of Izhar Qureshi v. State of M. P. The decisions of this Court and the other Honourable High Courts relied on by the non-applicant (complainant) are on the different points and not applicable to this case for deciding the matter in controversy. ( 12 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law applicable, it is a fit case where the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. are required to be exercised for securing ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. ( 13 ) IN the result this petition is allowed and the impugned order of the JMFC. Mhow and Additional Sessions Judge. Mhow, respectively dated 1-9-1997 and 18-11-1997 are set aside. The complaint filed by the non-applicant No. 1 is quashed and the applicants stand discharged of the charges under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. in pending criminal case No. 455/1991. No orders as to the costs. Petition allowed. .