JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Case No. 813/90 under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of. Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. Petitioner No. 1 Gokul Das is Manager of M/s. G.R. Traders and petitioner No. 2 is the owner of the shop. 2. The complaint was filed in the court of learned C.J.M., Banswara, on 22.8.90 under Section 7/16 of the Act. The accused attended the court on 17.7.91 and the case was fixed for stating the substance of the accusation. The case was fixed for examining the witnesses on 17 2.95 but not a single witness could be examined from 17.2,95 to 3.1.98 because on most of the dates the Presiding Officer went on leave. During the aforesaid period, the Presiding Officers were transferred on 5.6.95 and. 18.4.96. One witness i.e. PW 1 Omdutt Sharma was examined on 3.3.98. The charges were framed against the petitioners under S. 7/16 of the Act on 2.12.94. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners are regularly attending the court but the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness for seven years. The petitioners have suffered mental and physical harassment as well as financial burden since 1990. The proceedings are not being taken up expeditiously whereas the speedy trial is the fundamental right of the petitioners. It is submitted that in the above circumstances, the proceedings pending against the petitioners deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. Only one witness has been examined and with this speed, the trial is likely to take a sufficient long time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners on the ground that the charges against the petitioners are about food adulteration, which is a serious offence. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not made any lapse or contributed in the alleged delaying trial. 5. I have perused the certified copies of the order-sheets of the proceedings filed by the petitioners. It is evident that the complaint was filed on 22.8.90 and it was fixed from 17.2.95 to 3.1.98 and not a single witness has been examined. Petitioners have regularly attended the court and fully cooperated in the trial. 5. I have perused the certified copies of the order-sheets of the proceedings filed by the petitioners. It is evident that the complaint was filed on 22.8.90 and it was fixed from 17.2.95 to 3.1.98 and not a single witness has been examined. Petitioners have regularly attended the court and fully cooperated in the trial. I find that the order-sheets have not been recorded in detail showing the reason for not attending the court by the witnesses. It appears from the order-sheets that on several dates, the office did not issue the process against the witnesses. It is not clear from the order-sheets whether the summonses issued by the court were received served or un-served. Be that as it may, it can be 'said that there is no lapse on the part of the petitioners in any manner to delay the trial The proceedings remained pending for about eight years and only one witness could be examined as late as 3.3.98 and charges were framed on 2.12.94. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that necessary steps have not been taken to conclude the trial speedily. The speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and if there is any inordinate delay without any fault on the part of the accused, then in appropriate cases proceedings may be termed or result in abuse of the process of the court. In such circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the interest of justice, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. It is the duty of the prosecution to take steps and also to ensure that the process issued by the court is served by the process serving agency i.e. concerned Police Station in this case. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the court to issue process to procure the attendance of the witnesses and further take necessary steps to ensure the attendance at an early date. But it does not absolve the prosecution to make efforts and to ensure that the witnesses are served by the concerned Police Station in order to assist the court to expedite the trial. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the proceedings pending against the petitioners, who regularly attended the court for last eight years, deserve to be quashed. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the proceedings pending against the petitioners, who regularly attended the court for last eight years, deserve to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is allowed and the proceedings pending in Criminal Case No. 813/90, State v. Gokul Das pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Banswara, are hereby quashed. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners are discharged.Petition Allowed. *******