JUDGMENT 1. - Through this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.c., the petitioner seeks the quashment of proceedings pending against him in the Court of Special Judge. Bhilwara under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening provisions of Rajasthan Trade Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order. 1976. 2. Mr. Shishodia pointing out that the case was instituted against the petitioner on 27.2.1989 and till today no witness has been examined, contended that continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of the process of the Court. Relying on the cases of San rash De v. Archna Guha, AIR 1994 SC 1229 & Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 24 he submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, admitting that there has been delay in the trial of the case, contended that the charges against the petitioner are of serious nature. and therefore, this Court should not quash the proceedings. Relying on the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 he canvassed that keeping in view that the offence is against the society, this Court may give directions to decide the case within fixed time limit instead of quashing the proceedings. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that no witness has been examined as yet though the case was instituted way back on 13.2.1989. A reading of the order-sheet shows that though the accusation was read over to the petitioner on the next day of filing of the case, yet the witnesses have not been examined for one or the other reason. On some dates, the witnesses could not he served while at others the witnesses were present but could not be examined on the request of the accused. Many a times process issued against the accused was not returned. It has to he accepted that there has been delay in the trial of the case and the delay is not solely attributable to the petitioner. 5. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has considered the effect of infringement of right of speedy trial flowing from Art. 21 of the Constitution of India in the cases of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (supra). 5. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has considered the effect of infringement of right of speedy trial flowing from Art. 21 of the Constitution of India in the cases of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (supra). At para 85 of the report their lordships observed as follows:- "85. Another question seriously canvassed before us related to the consequence flowing from an infringement of right to speedy trial. Counsel for accused argued on the basis of the observations in Sheela Barse and Strung that the only consequence is quashing of charges and/or conviction, as the case may be. Normally, it may be so. But we do not think that that is the only order open to Court. In a given case, the facts - including the nature of offence - may be such that quashing of charges may not be in the interest of justice. After all, every offence - more so economic offences, those relating to public officials and food adulteration - is an offence against society. It is really the society - the State -that prosecutes the offender. We may in this connection recall the observations of this Court in Champalal Punjaji Shah. In cases, where quashing of charges/convictions may not he in the interest of justice, it shall be open to the Court to pass such appropriate orders as may be deemed just in the circumstances of the case. Such orders may, for example take the shops a of order for expedition of trial and its conclusion within a particular prescribed period, reduction of sentence when the matter comes up after conclusion of trial and conviction, and so on." 6. A reading of the above observations makes it clear that where there is infringement of right of speedy trial the charges should be quashed or if the accused is convicted it should be quashed but such a course should not be adopted where the offence is against the society. Their lordships have particularly made a mention of offences such as economic offences. offences under Food Adulteration Act etc. It has been observed that in such matters the Court should pass appropriate orders as may he just in the circumstances of the case for example the order may take the chaps of order for expedition of trial and its conclusion within a particular prescribed period. 7. offences under Food Adulteration Act etc. It has been observed that in such matters the Court should pass appropriate orders as may he just in the circumstances of the case for example the order may take the chaps of order for expedition of trial and its conclusion within a particular prescribed period. 7. The charge against the petitioner being under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act for contravening the provisions of Rajasthan Trade Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation and Distribution) Order, 1973 is obviously for an offence against the society. It cannot he proper to quash the proceedings on the ground of infringement of right to speedy trial, of course, in the case of Santosh De (supra) their lordships quashed the trial on the ground of infringement of right of speedy trial but keeping in view the observations made by their lordships of the Constitution Bench in the case of A.R. Anrulay (supra), it cannot he proper to quash the proceedings in this case. It is significant to point out that in the case of Santosh De. the respondent-State of Bihar had not put in appearance in the case to oppose the petition. It was also noticed by their lordships that the Government of Bihar had refused to grant sanction for prosecuting the accused which was required under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and taking the advantage of the interim order passed by their lordships the State Government had given suspension. In the fact & circumstances of the case their lordships had affirmed the order of the High Court which had quashed the proceedings. Keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Constitutional Bench in the case of A.R. Allnikly (supra) it may not be proper to quash the proceedings of the instant case on the basis of the decision in the case of Santosh De (supra). 8. The case of Hemraj (supra) was under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears that the attention of this Court was not drawn towards the observations of their lordships in the case of A.R. Antulav (supra). 9. For the reasons stated above, the proceedings pending against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed. I. however, think it proper to give. directions for expeditious disposal of the case. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 9. For the reasons stated above, the proceedings pending against the petitioner are not liable to be quashed. I. however, think it proper to give. directions for expeditious disposal of the case. 10. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial of the case within six months from the date a copy of this order is placed before it.Petition dismissed. *******