JUDGMENT 1. - Gagan Das and Narain Lal have preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. with the prayer to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 912/88 under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara. The petitioners case is that a complaint was filed against them on 16.11.88 Gagan Das attended the Court on 6.2.89 and Narain Lal presented himself on 6.4.93. On the application of learned Public Prosecutor, the firm was also arrayed as accused and, ordered to summon Ravindra Nath. The case was proceeded on for the attendance of Ravindra Nath and ultimately it was informed on 2.7.98 that Ravindra Nath expired. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused persons on 24.7.98 and up to 4.12.98, no witness was present despite the case was fixed on 3 dates. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is submitted that no complaint was filed against the firm along with the petitioners. The prosecution committed this legal flow and caused delay in commencement of the proceedings as the Court had to issue notices to summon Ravindra Nath, Proprietor of the firm. The petitioners attended the Court on all the, dates fixed by the Court for securing the attendance of Ravindra Nath but summons were not served upon him. The case proceeded only after 2.7.98 when it was shown that Ravindra Nath expired. It is contended that the proceedings have involved 10 years without the fault of the petitioners and even now, the witnesses were not produced on three dates after framing of the charge on 24.7.98. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution is bound to take long time to have the trial concluded. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has controverted the argument that delay was procedural and not on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that his right to expeditious trial has been infringed. 5. I have seriously considered the rival contentions and perused the certified copies of the order sheets filed along with the petition. The petitioners have attended the court on almost on all the dates. They have suffered agony of protracted trial from 1988. The proceedings have not been conducted expeditiously. 6. I am unable to appreciate the contention that it was procedural delay. The petitioners have attended the court on almost on all the dates. They have suffered agony of protracted trial from 1988. The proceedings have not been conducted expeditiously. 6. I am unable to appreciate the contention that it was procedural delay. I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners must be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 912/88 under Section 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara are hereby quashed. The bail bonds are cancelled. *******