JUDGMENT 1. -The petitioner has moved this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashment of the proceedings of criminal case No. 379/93 (22/88) pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The aforesaid case was registered on a complaint filed on 31.3.1988. The petitioner was present in the Court on 12.6.1988. The case was fixed for recording the prosecution evidence before the charge. But on several dates either the summons were not issued by the office or the witnesses did not attend the Court even on service upon them. The case was transferred to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana on 20.10.1993 where also summons were issued to the witnesses but witnesses did not attend the Court. Thus, the case continued from 20.8.1990 to 21.5.1998 for recording the prosecution evidence without any progress. Jagdish (PW 1) was examined on 9.7.1998. Now, the charges have been framed and witnesses are being summoned to complete the trial. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the right of the petitioner to have expeditious trial has been infringed which has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the fundamental right of the accused. He submits that the order sheets reveal that accused has attended all the dates of hearing but the delay has occasioned on account of lapse on the part of the prosecution because no effective steps were taken by it to serve the service to secure the attendance. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in the above circumstances can very well be said abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, in the interest of justice, proceedings should be quashed. 4. The learned Pubic Prosecutor contested the above contention and submitted that the Court issued summons and even bailable warrants to procure the attendance of witnesses. Prosecution is not at fault if the witnesses did not attend the Court or their summons were not served. It is further argued that now the charge has been framed and the trial can be concluded within 3 or 4 months. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. I have perused the certified copies of order sheets alongwith petition. It is further argued that now the charge has been framed and the trial can be concluded within 3 or 4 months. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. I have perused the certified copies of order sheets alongwith petition. The order sheets show that the accused is continuously attending on almost all the dates and there is no reason to blame him for causing delay in trial. Be that as it may, without going into the question of blaming either the prosecution or the accused, the fact is that the accused has suffered protracted trial since 31.3.1988. Even then, only one witness was examined on 9.7.1988 and charge was framed on 5.11.1998 after almost more than 10 years of the commencement of the proceedings. On the next date also i.e. on 3.12.1998, no witness was present. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner about further delay in trial cannot be held without any substance. I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioner's right of expeditious trial has been clearly violated in this case by the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted against him. I am of the view that the proceedings pending against the petitioner should be quashed in the interest of justice in the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.In the result, this petition is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 379/98 (22/88) pending against the petitioner under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana, are hereby quashed. The petitioner's bail bonds are cancelled.Petition allowed. *******