JUDGMENT 1. - On 13.10.88 Sh. Om Veer Singh, Food Inspector, had purchased 600 gms. of Khandsari Sugar from the applicant at his shop at Nauganv (Alwar). On analysis the sample of the Khandsari sugar was found adulterated and therefore the Food Inspector filed a complaint for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act) against the petitioner in the competent court. The petitioner put in appearance in The court on 21.2.1991 and since then the applicant has been facing trial in the said complaint case. Termination of the proceedings of the said complaint case on the ground of violation of fundamental right of the petitioner to speedy trial has been prayed for in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of such prayer the certified copies of the order sheets of the trial court have been produced and reliance has been placed on the decisions of this court in the case of Sukh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(2) RCC 64 , Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 32/1998 dated 23.3.98 , Gagan Dass and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) RCC 30 , Ram Avtar v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(1) RCC 321 and Gokal Dass & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(2) RCC 576 . 2. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before me. 3. The petitioner had put in appearance in court in this case on 21.2.1991 and thereafter the learned Magistrate had adjourned the case for 5.9.91 for recording evidence before charge. The case continued to be adjourned on 5.9.91, 3.10.91, 26.2.92, 9.6.92, 7.10.92, 19.1.93, 9.4.93, 27.7.93, 1.10.93, 25.1.94, 12.4.94, 26.8.94, 29.11.94 and 2.3.93 in order to enable the complainant to produce his evidence before charge. Not only that no witness was examined during this long period but also that the Food Inspector himself who was the complainant was not examined, for one reason or the other, in support of his complaint. On 2.3.95 the learned Magistrate appears to have read over and explained the substance of accusation to the petitioner and the case was adjourned for recording prosecution evidence. Upto 30.5.97 the case continued to be adjourned to enable the complainant to examine his witnesses but none appears to have to been produced. On 2.3.95 the learned Magistrate appears to have read over and explained the substance of accusation to the petitioner and the case was adjourned for recording prosecution evidence. Upto 30.5.97 the case continued to be adjourned to enable the complainant to examine his witnesses but none appears to have to been produced. On 30.7.97 the learned Magistrate directed that de-novo trial shall be held in the case and again read over and explained the substance of accusation to the applicant. Thereafter only two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution by now and the case has continuously been adjourned for procuring the attendance of the is Food Inspector. During this long period of pendency of the trial the applicant is found to have regularly attended the dates of hearing fixed in the case. 4. Speedy trial of an accused has since been recognised and accepted as one of his fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution. This right cannot be taken away from him unless he himself is found at fault and by his conduct and behaviour during the pendency of the trial against him he has disentitle himself to claim the availability of such a right to him. Loner prosecution, for no fault of the accused, brings in, sometimes, more punishment than that prescribed by law for the offence alleged to have been committed by him. An accused cannot be asked to suffer the rigorous of a long trial resulting from fault or negligence of his adversary and from not his own. 5. In the instant case not only that the learned trial Magistrate appears to have confused himself with regard to the procedure to be adopted in the case and he read over and explained the substance of accusation to him twice but also that during the long period extending over 10 years the petitioner had attended almost all the dates of hearing fixed in the case for prosecution, even the complainant himself did not care to appear in court in compliance to the process repeatedly and regularly issued by the court against him. Under such circumstances, I take the view that continuance of the proceedings of the Criminal Case against the petitioner amounts to gross abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate and it expedient in the interest of justice to terminate such proceedings against him to save him from injustice being caused to him. 6. In view of the above, the proceedings of criminal case No. 89/90 under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, against the petitioner Thakur Das are hereby quashed and terminated. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the offence under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration as Act in that case. 7. The petition stands allowed.Petition Allowed. *******