Judgment B.J. Shethana, J.-The petitioner accused is a petty vendor. He is “Kmnhar” staying in a small village Harni Ban, Distt. Bhilwara. By selling cow milk, he was earning his bread. On 30-3-86, when he was going on his bicycle at Teja Ji Ka Chowk, Bhilwara, he was intercepted by the Food Inspector and sample of cow milk was taken from him for the purpose of analysis. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the public analyst shows that it was adulterated in the sense that It was having less milk fats and milk solids not fats described under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short ‘the Act’). On receiving the said report, a complaint was filed on 5-1-87 against the petitioner accused for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Act before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. The charge came to be framed against the accused for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act by an order dated 21-6-88 passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the first witness came to be examined only in 1990, second witness was examined in 1991 and third witness was examined in 1992. Thereafter, the statement of accused petitioner was also recorded. Surprisingly, an application was moved by the prosecution to recall witness Radhey Shyam, whose further statement was also recorded in 1993. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for arguments on 19-5-93. At such a belated stage, an application came to be filed by learned A.P.P. on 25-6-93 to try the case as a summary trial under Section 16-A of the Act. Somehow or the other, no order could be passed on that application and the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 27-6-97 without passing any order on that application submitted by the learned APP, the petitioner was once again explained the substance of allegation which he denied. Later on fresh summons were ordered to be issued to the prosecution witnesses and the matter was kept on 5-9-97. On that day i.e. on 5-9-97, the learned A.P.P. submitted another application for de novo trial and the matter was fixed for 19-12-97 by the learned trial Judge for passing an order on that application. At that stage, the petitioner accused decided to file this petition and accordingly, this petition was filed on 20-11-97 under Section 482, Cr. On that day i.e. on 5-9-97, the learned A.P.P. submitted another application for de novo trial and the matter was fixed for 19-12-97 by the learned trial Judge for passing an order on that application. At that stage, the petitioner accused decided to file this petition and accordingly, this petition was filed on 20-11-97 under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and it is prayed that because of the inordinate delay in the trial, the criminal proceedings initiated against him in case No. 65 8/96 be quashed. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Jodha for the petitioner accused vehemently submitted that after the commission of the alleged offence on 30-3-86, by now more than a period of 15 years has passed, therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner accused should be quashed. However, learned P.P. Mr. Soni for the respondent State vehemently submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for a serious offence like an offence of adulteration under the Act, therefore, only on the ground of delay, the proceedings should not be quashed. 3. Thereis a lot of substance in the submission made by learned P.P. Mr. Soni that when the accused is facing serious charge of adulteration under the Act, then this Court should ordinarily not interfere and quash the proceedings. However, it depends upon facts of each case. It is true that the petitioner is charged with an offence of adulteration under the Act but in the instant case, the adulterated food which he was alleged to have been selling was ‘cow milk’ and looking to the report of the Public Analyst, it is clear that it was short of some percentage in milk fat and milk solids not fat, therefore, it was adulterated. In any case, it cannot be said that adulteration was such which was injurious to health. 4. I have earlier already narrated the facts of the instant case in brief and from the same, it is clear that the petitioner was a petty vendor who was a rustic villager and selling cow milk on a bicycle. The offence which is alleged to have been committed by him was way back on 30-3-86 i.e. more than 15 years from today. The complaint came to be filed in 1987 only after a period of almost one year. After filing of the complaint, first witness could be examined only in 1990, second in 1991 and third in 1992. The offence which is alleged to have been committed by him was way back on 30-3-86 i.e. more than 15 years from today. The complaint came to be filed in 1987 only after a period of almost one year. After filing of the complaint, first witness could be examined only in 1990, second in 1991 and third in 1992. Thereafter, the statement of accused was also recorded. At that time in 1992, an application was moved by the learned APP to once again record the statement of witness Radhey Shyam which was also granted and his statement was also recorded in 1993. Thereafter the matter was fixed for final arguments in 1993. At that point of time, an application was submitted by learned A.P.P. to try the case as summary trial. It was too late in a day for the learned A.P.P. to submit an application for trial which is clear from the peculiar facts of this case. Surprisingly, without passing any order on such application, the trial Court explained the substance of the allegation to the accused and ordered to issue fresh summons to the prosecution witnesses and kept the matter on 5-9-97. On that day, once again a fresh application was submitted by the learned A.P.P. to try the case as de novo for which the matter was once again fixed by learned Magistrate on 19-12-97. 5. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner accused had no option but to approach this Court by way of this petition to quash the proceedings pending against him. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Jodha has cited number ofJudgment s of this Court which I would not like to refer because in my considered opinion, this petition is required to be allowed on the peculiar facts of this case. When the trial Court ordered de novo trial, period of almost 11 years had passed after the commission of the offence which is alleged against the petitioner. By that time, the prosecution witnesses were already examined in 1993 and all of sudden, the learned A.P.P. woke up from slumber and submitted an application to try the case as summary trial. I failed to understand that what were the circumstances which led the learned A.P.P. to submit such application. Be that as it may. By that time, the prosecution witnesses were already examined in 1993 and all of sudden, the learned A.P.P. woke up from slumber and submitted an application to try the case as summary trial. I failed to understand that what were the circumstances which led the learned A.P.P. to submit such application. Be that as it may. Without passing any order on such application, the learned Magistrate once again proceeded to explain the substance of the accusation to the accused in 1997 after a period of 4 years and when the witnesses were ordered to remain present by summons, then once again an application was submitted by the learned A.P.P. to try the case as de novo trial. In such type of cases, the learned Magistrate who was trying the case should have put his foot down and rejected the application. From proceedings of that case, I am at pains to state that all the learned Magistrate who were trying the case straightway go on granting the application submitted by the learned A.P.P. without applying their mind and without considering the provisions of law. That has resulted into such a gross delay in the conclusion of the trial. 7. In the instant case, even if the offence was proved against the accused, then at the most, he could have been convicted for a period of 3 months or say 6 months. But the petitioner has suffered for all these years. There was a hanging sword on his head for so many years. This itself is more than sufficient punishment to him. 8. In view of the inordinate delay and protracted proceedings against the petitioner, on peculiar facts of this case, I am of the considered opinion that such a delay was not only unreasonable but also unfair and unjust to the accused. Under the circumstances, after a lapse of period of more than 15 years, it would not be proper for this Court to allow the prosecution to proceed further with the case against the accused and permit de novo trial in the case. In the instant case, the petitioner accused is really deprived of his right of a speedy trial as provided under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner accused is really deprived of his right of a speedy trial as provided under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. 9. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in criminal case No.658/96 are hereby quashed. 10. At this stage, it was submitted by the learned P.P. Mr. Soni that this Judgment will be cited as a precedent by other accused and on the ground of delay, the proceedings may be quashed against so many other accused. This apprehension expressed by Mr. Soni is not well founded for the reason that this Judgment is delivered on the peculiar facts of this case. Before quashing the proceedings, the Court has to keep in mind that delay occurred on whose account and what are the facts and circumstances of the case. If the accused is charged with a serious offence of adulteration of food substance, which is injurious to health, etc., then delay would hardly matter. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the petitioner accused stands cancelled.