Judgment Mohd. Yamin, J.-By this petition accused petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Banswara on the basis of FIR No. 42/87 may be quashed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor at length. 3. It is relevant to mention the facts of the case in brief A report was lodged against the petitioners on 14-10-1987 at police station Sallopat Distt. Banswara that a truck loaded with wheat bags belonging to M/s Agarwal Brothers was trans-porting wheat to Gujrat. It was also stated that some of the bags were having a seal of Food Corporation of India and some of the bags had seals of 1984 and the others of 1986, The bags were loaded by one Manohar Lal in five trucks while the wheat belonged to Food Corporation of India. Trucks were checked and it was found that MIs Agarwal Brothers Banswara had sent wheat in five trucks to Gujarat to Sabar Rolar Floor Mill. On investigation it was found that M/s. Agarwal Brothers Banswara had collected wheat bags from Government Ration shops from different distributors and the wheat while has to be used by consumers after having been purchased from different dealers was being sent to Gujarat. Since there was a contravention of the Rajasthan Food Grains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976, an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was committed. 4. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted on 18-12-87. It was on 17-10-89 that accusation was read over to the accused petitioners. The case proceeded for prosecution evidence but only few witnesses could be examined. Learned Special Judge was transferred and since the case was being tried summarily, on 15-1-92 it was again ordered that accusation be read to the accused petitioners. 5. I will not go into the merit of this order but I feel that recording of the plea of the accused persons again was not necessary. What is necessary is simply recording of evidence afresh. However, the accusation was again read over on 27-6-92 and the evidence of four witnesses was recorded in October, 1992. In all 10 witnesses could be examined by April, 1994 when the Presiding Officer was again transferred. What is necessary is simply recording of evidence afresh. However, the accusation was again read over on 27-6-92 and the evidence of four witnesses was recorded in October, 1992. In all 10 witnesses could be examined by April, 1994 when the Presiding Officer was again transferred. The new Presiding Officer on 2-7-94 again read over the accusation to the accused persons in July, 1994 and started evidence afresh. The prosecution witnesses have not been examined uptil now as the matter has been hanging fire since 1987. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that quick trial is a fundamental right of accused and in this case the accused petitioners’ right has been infringed. So much so the prosecution is not able to complete its evidence despite innumerable opportunities that has caused not only infringement of the fundamental right of the accused petitioners but has caused them financial loss and has broken them mentally. He cited a Judgment delivered in Hukma vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No. 351/97, decided on 4-3-1998 wherein the case was pending since 1989 and the proceedings were quashed as the prosecution was not able to complete the trial. I may refer to leading case Raghuvir Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 : 1987 CriLJ (Raj) 157 in which it was held that right to a speedy trial is one of the dimensions of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further observed in this citation that the question whether the right to speedy trial which forms part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 has been infringed is ultimately a question of fairness in the administration of justice and a fair and reasonable procedure is what is contemplated by expression procedure established by law in Article 21. Thus it is well settled that the accused has got a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for the speedy and fair trial. So if on facts it is established that the delay is not attributable to the accused, it may be held that the right of the accused stands violated and consequently such criminal proceedings pending against the accused are liable to be quashed. 7. So if on facts it is established that the delay is not attributable to the accused, it may be held that the right of the accused stands violated and consequently such criminal proceedings pending against the accused are liable to be quashed. 7. In the instant case I have perused the certified copies of the relevant order sheets produced by the petitioners from which I find that on few occasions the accused persons of their counsel sought adjournments but the delay for major part of the litigation was occasioned by the prosecution. The case was adjourned time and again mainly because the prosecution witnesses were not available and that caused unbearable, mental, physical and financial agony to the accused petitioners. More than 10 long years have elapsed but no substantial progress has been made in the trial. In my view this protracted trial has resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court and it cannot be allowed to be continued any more as it has resulted in the failure of the justice to the accused petitioners. 8. I, therefore, allow this petition and quash the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 1/88 pending in the Court of learned special Judge, Essential Commodities Act Cases, Banswara.