JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by two petitioners for quashing proceedings pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Cr.P.C. Case No. 565/75. The name of the case is State v. Ramswaroop . 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Rajesh Joshi and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Petitioners are the partners of M/s. Ramswaroop Rajendra Prasad of Churu. On 2.11.1974 Inspector of Supply Department Churu inspected the said business concerned and it is alleged that entry about purchase of gram from Bajranglal and others was wrongly made and thus the Rajasthan Food Grain Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 was contravened. An offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was committed about which FIR was lodged at the police station concerned. After investigation the police submitted final report but the learned Magistrate took cognisance on 16.9.1982. A petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. against taking cognisance was filed but the same was dismissed. Statements of all the witnesses were recorded during trial but in the meantime jurisdiction of courts was changed and the case under Essential Commodities Act were transferred to Special Judges appointed for the purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case is pending for more than two decades and the Presiding Officers are transferred time and again and the trial is not concluded. It has also been submitted that the order which was contravened was rescinded in 1977 and that this Court to in number of reported and unreported judgments has quashed the proceedings on account of delay. He submitted that the speedy trial is a fundamental right which has been infringed in this case. It has been prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that change of jurisdiction to Special Judges will not be a ground to quash the proceedings. He submitted that of course the case has been pending for quite long time, it is the petitioner himself who first delayed proceedings by filing petition under section 482 Cr.PC. against the order of cognisance. Learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to various order sheets of the trial court when one or the other accused was not appearing. However, it is not much material because basically the case is being adjourned for retrial because of transfer of Presiding Officer. 6. against the order of cognisance. Learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to various order sheets of the trial court when one or the other accused was not appearing. However, it is not much material because basically the case is being adjourned for retrial because of transfer of Presiding Officer. 6. Such a situation was considered by Rajasthan High Court in a judgment given in Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 215/197 and Anil Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 422/1997, decided on 30.9.1997 at Jaipur Bench in which certain directions were issued to all the Judges trying such cases. If the learned Judge trying this case has not followed those directions, that does not entitle the petitioner to get the proceedings quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The Essential Commodities Act is an act which provides for punishment of economic offences and in such a case like the present one, I am not inclined to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. Learned trial Judge is directed to follow the directions given in the said judgment and dispose of the case within a period not exceeding three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Petition dismissed. *******