Judgment ( 1 ) ORDER :- This petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. arises out of the Cr. Case No. 18/90 (State v. Madanlal) under S. 7 read with S. 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short p. F. A. Act) pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said proceedings on the ground of delay in trial. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be stated for the disposal of this petition are that Food Inspector Sanwal Singh took the samples of chilli powder from the shop of the petitioner on 9-6-89 and submitted a complaint on 11-1-90. The case was adjourned to receive the second sample from 7-3-90 to 4-8-93. The second sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory on 14-10-1993 and the report was received on 23-2-94. Order was passed for warrant procedure and the case was fixed for recording pre-charge prosecution evidence by order dated 17-11-94. The witnesses were not present from 13-3-95 to 11-2-98 though during this period the case was also adjourned three times due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer. Ultimately P. W. 1 Sanwal Singh was examined on 6-4-98. The case was further fixed for recording further prosecution evidence. P. W. 2 Hari Bhajan was examined on 15-10-98 and the charge was framed on 2-12-98. Now the case is pending for recording the prosecution evidence but the prosecution witnesses are not appearing in the Court. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the prosecution has not completed its evidence during the last ten years. The prosecution has failed to produce its witnesses in Court despite several adjournments. The petitioner is regularly attending the Court for the last ten years and has undergone all sorts of physical and mental harassment and also suffered loss of money. The right of the petitioner to the speedy trial interpreted as fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India by Honble Supreme Court has been violated and the proceedings may be quashed. The learned public prosecutor has opposed this contention and urged that the prosecution is not at fault and now directions may be given to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the case within a specified time. ( 4 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. The learned public prosecutor has opposed this contention and urged that the prosecution is not at fault and now directions may be given to the learned trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the case within a specified time. ( 4 ) I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions. It is clear from the perusal of the order-sheets that delay in the trial has occurred mainly due to the fact that the second sample was not received by the Court from 7-3-90 to 22-9-93 for over three years. Thereafter witnesses did not turn up in the Court and the case was adjourned in the routine manner because no effective steps were taken by the Court for service of the summons, this also contributed for the delay of four years. There is no fault of the petitioner as he is regularly attending the Court for the last ten years. This prolonged trial infringes the right of the petitioner to speedy trial now considered a fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Obviously the petitioner has suffered a lot of physical and mental discomfort and agony and also loss of money. I do not deem it a fit case to give direction now to continue the trial and to decide the same within a specified time. I am of the view that the petitioner should not be further subjected to more harassment or mental agony and further loss of money as the case is likely to take more time because even now it is pending for recording the prosecution evidence. ( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. The proceedings of the Cr. Case No. 18/1990 (State v. Madanlal) under S. 7 read with S. 16 of P. F. A. Act pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.