( 1 ) THE facts leading to the aforementioned revisions are that in original Case No. 329 of 1981, Food Inspector Vs. Ram Prakash and M/s Shanker Salt works through Kundal lal the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate, Dehradun by the order dated 31. 08. 1982 convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 16 (l) (a) (I)of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced each one of them to suffer R. I. for a period of six months and to paya fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. for a period of one month each. ( 2 ) ACCUSED Kundan Lal challenged his conviction by preferring criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1982 while accused Ram Prakash challenged his conviction by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Deharadun. Both the appeals were heard together by Sri Sardar Bahadur Balveer the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun. He found that the court, which tried the case against the two accused-appellants, had no jurisdiction and consequently sat aside their conviction and sentence by his judgment and order dated 30. 11. 1984 and remanded the case to the C. J. M. Dehradun to get the case tried by the competent court in the light of the observations made in the body of judgment afresh. He also directed the parties to appear before the court concerned on 01. 12. 1984. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid common order of remand in both the appeals, accused Kundan Lal preferred Criminal Revision no. 280 of 1985 and similarly, accused Ram Prakash preferred criminal Revision No. 306 of 1985 in this Court. The accused-revisionist Kundal Lal prayed that the operation of the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 30. 11. 1984 in criminal Revision No. 84 of 1982 relating to him be stayed and acting upon that prayer, the High Court vide it order dated 15. 02. 1985 stayed further proceedings as prayed. Accused-revisionist Ram Prakash made similar prayer in Criminal Revision no. 306 of 1985 and therein also this Court acting upon the prayer stayed the proceedings by its order dated 19. 02. 1985 and as a consequence thereof, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 329 of 1981 are lying stayed till now. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 306 of 1985 and therein also this Court acting upon the prayer stayed the proceedings by its order dated 19. 02. 1985 and as a consequence thereof, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 329 of 1981 are lying stayed till now. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only contention raised before me behalf of the two accused-revisionists is that the order of the learned Addl. Sessions judge directing the retrial was untenable and should be set aside. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the accused-revisionists on the authority S. Guin and others Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. , AIR 1986 Supreme Court 289. In my view this authority is of no help to the accused-revisionists. In that case, a complaint has been filed before the Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for the offences under Section 341 i. P. C. and Section 36 AD of the Banking Regulation Act committed in October, 1977. After trial, the Magistrate acquitted all the accused. Against the said judgment of acquittal, an appeal was filed by the bank before the High Court and after nearly six years, the High court found that the trial Court had missed the essence of the offences and so there was failure of justice and consequently set aside the judgment of acquittal and remanded the case for retrail for the offence and under these circumstances, the Apex Court observed that having regard tot he nature of the acts alleged to have been committed, the High Court should have directed the dropping of the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, criminal procedure Code even if for some reason it came to the conclusion that the acquittal was wrong and that fresh trial nearly seven years after the alleged incident is bound to result in harassment and abuses of judicial process. The Apex Court further said: ". . . . . . . . . . . . The Apex Court further said: ". . . . . . . . . . . . the High Court should have dismissed the appeal before it even if it disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court with regard to the gist of the offence punishable under section 341 Indian Penal code, having regard tot he inordinate delay of nearly six years that had ensued after the judgment of acquittal, the nature and magnitude of the offences allege to have been committed by the appellants and the difficulties that may have to be encountered in securing the presence of witnesses in a case of this nature nearly 7 years after the incident. The termination of the criminal proceedings in that way would secure the ends of justice as it would bring about reconciliation between the management and the employees and also put an end to a state criminal proceeding in which the public had no longer sufficient interest. " The Apex Court consequently restored the order of acquittal in these circumstances. In the present case, the facts are totally different. In this case, the occurrence related to year 1979. The trial court made the conviction on 31. 08. 1982 and the appellate court passed the remand order on 30. 11. 1984 which cannot be said to be long-after and if the two accused-revisionists had abided with the remand order, retrial of the case might have been finished in the year 1985 itself. It cannot be said that in the year 1984 when the learned Additional sessions Judge deciding the two appeals passed the remand order, there was anything illegal in his order. There was no undue delay in the trial and also there was no undue delay in the disposal of the appeals. Actually, the appellate court had no option than to direct the retrial particularly in this case which related to the prevention of food Adulteration Act. The courts have always recognised that the economic offence, and the officers related to the public officers and food adulteration are such in which the quashing of charge or trial may not be in the interest of justice. The courts have always recognised that the economic offence, and the officers related to the public officers and food adulteration are such in which the quashing of charge or trial may not be in the interest of justice. The case of Rajdeo Sharma vs. state of Bihar reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cr.), 1692 is a case under the prevention of Corruption Act in which the F. I. R. was lodged 16 long years ago; charge sheet was submitted three years later and till 1995, the prosecution had examined only three out of forty witness, the Apex Court declined to quash the prosecution pointing out that the accused was never in carcerased as his bail application was allowed on the day he had appeared before the court. In the present case, there was no delay in the trial and there was no delay in the disposal of appeals preferred against the conviction and when the appellate court found that the trial had been made by a court having no jurisdiction and, therefore, directed the retrial and if due to the own act of the accused-revisionists, the retrial was delayed, then they have to thank themselves and in no way, the prosecution is a guilty of any delay in bringing the accused to retrial in pursuance of the remand order. The accused revisionist are countering on bail all through. Under these circumstances, it is immaterial that inpersuance of the remand order, the retrial would take-place now after the disposal of these two criminal revisions. The spirit of "common Cause" case ( "common Cause" a registered society through its Director Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri 589) goes against the accused-revisionists. in that case while making the direction in favour of the accused-person for release on bail, discharge or acquittal of the accused in cases suffering from delay in trial, the Apex Court expressly stated in Paragraph 4 that the directions shall not apply to the Cases involving corruption, N. D. P. S. Act, Essential Commodities act, Food Adulteration Act and Acts dealing with environment or any other economic of offence etc. In this authority it was said that the criminal courts shall try the offence mentioned in para aforesaid on priority basis. In this authority it was said that the criminal courts shall try the offence mentioned in para aforesaid on priority basis. The present also is a case relating the economic offence being under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and for that reason it was all the more improper to quash the remand order for retrial. ( 5 ) BOTH the above revisions are consequently dismissed. The remand order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun is upheld. The stay orders dated 15. 02. 1985 and 19. 02. 1985 passed by this court in Criminal Revisions Nos. 280 of 1985 and 306 of 1985 respectively are vacated. It is directed that the court to which the case is entrusted for retrial, shall act with utmost expedition in making the trial and deciding the case according to law. ( 6 ) LET the record of the trial court which has been received in criminal Revision No. 280 of 1985 be returned to the C. J. M. concerned along with a copy of this order forthwith by special messenger/courier. .