Honble MADAN, J.–Quick and speedy justice is sine qua non of Article 21. (2). This is a peculiar case in which the petitioner has out of sheer frustration moved this court by way of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. wherein the relief which the petitioner has sought is for quashing the proceeding pertaining to offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for short "the Act of 1955" pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sojat, Pali on the ground of inordinate delay. (3). The facts which are relevant for deciding the petition briefly Stated are that on 1.10.1980 a complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Enforcement Inspector with the allegation that the petitioner who was Dealer in sugar had taken 16 quintals of sugar on 19.8.80 for distribution. He charged 50 paisa over and above the prevalent market rate regarding the distribution of sugar to the fare price shops. The prevalent rate of sugar during the relevant time was Rs. 2.85 paisa per Kg. Further allegation against the petitioner is that as an authorised dealer of fair price shop he made the entry for supply of essential commodity i.e. sugar for March and July 1980 in his register but he did not distribute the sugar of the requisite stock for the said period. Hence, he contravened the condition of Order 1976 clauses(2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10) and (15) of Rajasthan Foodgrains and other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 for short "the order 1976", After registering the case, challan was filed on 13.11.80 before the trial court under Sec- tion 3/7 of the Act of 1955 for offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 IPC. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it shall be appropriate to refer to the following chart indicating the period w.e.f. date of incident i.e. 20.1.80 to 15.7.98 when the Statement of PW 29 and 30 were last recorded :- TABLE 1. Date of incident 21.08.80 2. Date of cognizance 13.11.80 3. Date of farming charge 05.09.81 4. PW1 Tejaram examined on 15.04.82 5. PW2 Sahdeo & PW3 Jeewa 20.05.82 6. PW4 Mohanlal 07.01.83 7. PW5 & Mohanlal 06.10.93 8. PW7 & 8 08.03.94 9. PW9 25.04.95 10. PW10 05.07.95 11. PW11 & 12 26.08.95 12. PW13 27.01.98 13. PW14,15,16,17 & 18 24.02.98 14. PW19 21.03.98 15. PW20,21,22 & 23 1.04.98 16. Date of farming charge 05.09.81 4. PW1 Tejaram examined on 15.04.82 5. PW2 Sahdeo & PW3 Jeewa 20.05.82 6. PW4 Mohanlal 07.01.83 7. PW5 & Mohanlal 06.10.93 8. PW7 & 8 08.03.94 9. PW9 25.04.95 10. PW10 05.07.95 11. PW11 & 12 26.08.95 12. PW13 27.01.98 13. PW14,15,16,17 & 18 24.02.98 14. PW19 21.03.98 15. PW20,21,22 & 23 1.04.98 16. PW24 to 27 2.04.98 17. PW29 &30 5.07.98 (4). From the perusal of the above chart, it is apparent the prosecution took more than 16 years in recording the evidence of its witnesses after framing of charge as on 5.9.1981 at extremely slow pace and the trial has taken nearly about 18 years if reckoned w.e.f. the date of taking cognizance i.e. 13/11/1980 and surprisingly it is not concluded till date for reasons best known to the prosecution. It is indeed very shocking and deplorable State of affairs since the prosecution has not explained the sparing or exceptional reasons for having not completed the evi- dence within the sport span of time but on the contrary there is inordinate delay in the matter in completion of the trial and yet no final order has been passed in the matter. It is settled principle of law that delay defeats equity and justice delayed is justice denied and this is one of such cases where there is a gross violation of the said principles. (5). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that more than 18 years have passed and still evidence of prosecution witnesses has not been finally recorded and God only knows that how much more time it is likely to take. In my view, this is one of blatant examples of protractive trial which is unreasonable and violative of right to speedy trial which has now been expressly recognised as an integral part of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (6). In my view, this is one of blatant examples of protractive trial which is unreasonable and violative of right to speedy trial which has now been expressly recognised as an integral part of right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (6). In the matter of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1), the Apex Court while dealing with question as regards right to speedy trial of an accused observed, as under:- ``(Para 5) Where under-trial prisoners have been in jail for periods longer than the maximum term for which they would have been sentenced, if convicted, their detention in jail is totally unjustified and in violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Art.21 of the constitution. Their detention in jail being illegal they should be released forthwith. Dicta:-``It is indeed difficult for us to understand how the State Government could possibly remain oblivious to the continued incarceration of those under-trial prisoners for years without even their trial having commenced. The judiciary in the State of Bihar also cannot escape its share of blame because it could not have been unaware of the fact that thousands of under-trial prisoners are languishing in jail awaiting trial which never seems to commence. We fail to see how the continued detention of these under-trial prisoners mentioned in the list of Mrs. Hingorani can be justified when we find that they have already been in jail for a period longer than what they would have been sentenced to suffer, if convicted. (7). In the matter of Srinivas Gopal vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (New State) (2), the Apex Court observed as under :- ``Article 21- Fairness of trial-Quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21. ``Keeping a person in suspended animation for 9 1/2 years without any cause at all - and none was indicated before the learned Magistrate or before the High Court or before us, cannot be with the spirit of procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, it is just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prose- cution of the appellant to proceed no further. We do so accordingly. (8). In the matter of Chhote Lal Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) the same controversy arose for consideration of this court. In that view of the matter, it is just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prose- cution of the appellant to proceed no further. We do so accordingly. (8). In the matter of Chhote Lal Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan (3) the same controversy arose for consideration of this court. This court after security of relevant case on the point laid down the following proposition of law :-" The constitutional position is now well settled. The right to speedy trial is one of the dimensions of fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Art.21." "After discussion of the various judicial pronouncements, the proposition of law in this connection can be laid down as under:- (i) A speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Art.21 of the Constitution of India is no more in dispute. But, the question whether this fundamental right has been violated or likely to be violated on account of the delay in the trial will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no outer limit can be fixed in a general way for all the cases; (ii) While considering the length of delay, the court will take into account the period consumed in the investigation of the case and the delay caused in actual proceedings in court after filing of the charge-sheet. A speedy investigation and a trial are equally mandated both by the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; (iii) While deciding such question, the court shall take into account the working of the judicial system in India and the lack of satisfactory working conditions in judicial courts, including larger pendency and institution of the cases, inadequacy of Judge strength and under-staffing etc.; (I) In a pending case to decide the question whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or any other appropriate direction be given to the trial court to secure the ends of justice will depend on several factors to be taken into consideration, such as the gravity and seriousness of the offence, whether the delay was occasioned by the tactic or conduct of the accused himself, whether the accused objected at any stage when such delay occasioned and whether the accused is prejudiced in his defence on account of the delay; (v) If the delay has caused prejudice to the accused in the conduct and his defence, the pending criminal proceedings should be normally quashed as in that situation it could be said that the accused has been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the trial is not fair and reasonable; (vi) In grave and serious offences against the society or in relation to Nations economy, defence or security, the criminal proceedings should not be normally quashed on the ground of delay simplicitor without anything further. (vii) In trivial offences having no or very little impact on the society, quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of delay simplicitor shall be in the interest of justice as it will provide a room for serious and grave offences and will lessen the burden of the Court with heavy work-load. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the legal position on the subject. (9). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as the legal position on the subject. Prima-facie, I have no he- sitation in observing that this is a serious lapse on the part of the Department of Food & Supply, Government of Rajasthan for having furnished no reasonable explanation on the record as to what were those sparing and exceptional circumstances for not having concluded the prosecution case before the ACJM Sojat, Pali in a case: (1) relating to sale of sugar over and above the then prevalent market pri- ce by one of the dealers of Department of Food & Supply, Government of Rajasthan in the concerned District which should have been dealt with and tried in a summary manner at the earliest which on contrary have taken years together with no reasonable explanation for delay; (2) if for such trivial offences such a long spell of time is to be taken by different wings of the State Government, then with regard to serious offences punishable under the Penal Code, the prosecution will in a routine manner resort to under delay seriously imparing the criminal justice system resulting in pendency of litigation with no justification for such extension which has resulted in violation of his right to speedy trial which is an integral part of right to life and liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Even on merits, no explanation has been furnished by the learned Public Prosecutor for this uncalled or delay which may justify extension of further time for completion of trial. None of the Departmental representative is present from where it could be ascertained as to how much more time the proceedings are likely to take. (10). I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing that the prosecution has relied upon atleast 54 witnesses which is borne out from the list of witnesses which has been shown for the perusal of the court. Out of the said list only 30 witnesses have been examined so far while remaining 20 have yet to be examined. Out of the said list only 30 witnesses have been examined so far while remaining 20 have yet to be examined. In my view, it is not the number of witnesses which is relevant for deciding the case but the credibility and the truthfulness of the witnesses which is more important and which in my view the trial court has admittedly failed to take notice. It was expected of the learned ACJM to have fixed the time schedule for recording of prosecution evidence having regard to the fact that Act of 1955 is a special enactment and the very aim and object of the said legislation is the speedy trial and disposal of such cases. The fair distributive system as regards the supply of foodgrains within the specified areas as per the Notification issued by the State Government, the essential pre-requisite of legislative scope and intend in having introduced the special enactment i.e. the Act of 1955 and the very purpose for which the said enactment was introduced stands defeated as a result of this unduly prolonged trial. (11). As a result of above discussion, I am of the view that this is a glaring example of abuse of process of law consequent upon the lapse on the part of the respondent-Department of the Food & Supply. Consequently, the petitioner is within his rights and has made out a case for exercise of inherent powers by this court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (12). As a result, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr. case No. 405/80 (896/83) for offence under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955 and Section 467 & 468 IPC pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-ACJM Sojat, Distt. Pali are quashed and set-aside having regard to the fact that the petitioner has faced protractive trial as aforesaid entirely on account of inordinate delay of the respondent State in having not completed the recording of evidence of prosecution evidence till date and which has also resulted in prolonging the mental ago- ny and torture of the petitioner, besides having violated his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (13). Certified copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner Civil Supply, Jaipur for information and necessary action. Copy be also sent to the Director (Prosecution), Jaipur for information.