Judgment S.C. Mital, J.-The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the proceedings in Cr. Case No. 41/85 pending against him in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the Food Inspector, Jodhpur presented a complaint against the petitioner under Section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 10-4-85 on the basis of a sample collected on 16-10-84. The petitioner appeared in the Court on 20-6-88 and the trial Court ordered to call the witnesses for evidence before charge. The Presiding Officer was not posted in that Court and witnesses could not be examined on five dates up to 3 1-8-89. The witnesses were, however, summoned by order dated 4-1 -90 but on three dates the statement of the Food Inspector could not be recorded as the sample was not received and his statement was partially recorded on 7-2-91. The witnesses were not examined up to 24-7-96 for various reasons recorded in the order sheets and only witness Mishrilal was examined on 4-6-96. Thereafter the case proceeded for completing the statement of PW. 1 Sanwal Singh. He was summoned on various dates and he was present in Court on 10-3-98 after nine adjournments. However, the statement of Sanwal Singh were not completed even on 10-3-98 because he did not bring with him the relevant record and the case was adjourned at the request of the prosecution. Now, the case is pending for completing the statement of Sanwal Singh, who is being summoned by the Court. In the above circumstances this petition has been preferred for quashing the proceedings. 3. I haveheard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the certified copies of the order sheets submitted by the petitioner up to 10-11-98. It is crystal clear by the order sheets that pre-charge evidence is not complete even after lapse often years. The case is pending for the last 14 years. It is also borne out from the proceedings that delay has not occasioned for any tactics or the conduct of the petitioner. He has been regularly attending the Court and co-operating with the Court for trial. The case is pending for the last 14 years. It is also borne out from the proceedings that delay has not occasioned for any tactics or the conduct of the petitioner. He has been regularly attending the Court and co-operating with the Court for trial. The prosecution has failed to produce the witnesses by getting the summons served and even the statement of the Food Inspector is still incomplete. I am of the view that in this case the proceedings have made progress at snails pace. It can well be said that if the proceedings are allowed to continue in such a leisurely maimer then it is likely to take another ten years. It is clearly a matter of abuse of process of law. 4. It is the duty of the trial Court and all the more of the prosecution to expeditiously conclude the” trial. The right of the accused for expeditious trial has been now treated as a fundamental right and if the delay is occasioned without his fault and particularly due to the lapse on the part of the prosecution, it is an infringement of his such fundamental right. In this case barring few dates on which adjournments were made due to some unavoidable reasons, mostly the delay has resulted due to the fault of the prosecution for not producing or getting served its witnesses. In these circumstances, 1 am inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that allowing to continue these proceedings even after 14 years would amount to abuse of the process of law and injustice to the petitioner, who has already suffered mental and physical strain by regularly attending the Courts for last 14 years and obviously also financial loss. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that directions may be given to complete the trial in a time frame work of three months in view of the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I have considered this contention, but I am not inclined to agree in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. In the result, this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482, CrPC is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case NBo. I have considered this contention, but I am not inclined to agree in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. 6. In the result, this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482, CrPC is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case NBo. 4 1/85 (State v. Heera Ram) pending against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are hereby quashed.