JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceedings being 515/1989 State v. Motilal pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on 8.10.1984 the Food Inspector submitted a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh against the petitioner for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954). The petitioner put in appearance before the said court on 22nd January, 1985. 3. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that he has been attending the court since 1985 but the case has not yet concluded. He raised the identical grievance before this Court on the earlier occasion which was registered as Cr. Misc. Petition No. 808/2001.This Court found substance in the grievance of the petitioner but instead of quashing the proceeding by order dated 14.5.2001 directed the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months. Inspite of direction of this Court, the trial has not yet concluded, as such the petitioner has revived the grievance by way of instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 4. This Court by order date 13.1.2004 sought explanation from the trial court for non-compliance of the order dated 15.5.2001. I have perused the explanation given by the learned Magistrate. It appears from the explanation of the learned Magistrate that the said court is over burdened. There is huge pendency in the said court. He is also holding additional charge of the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rawatbhata, He has to travel about 80 Kms. to hold camp court at Rawatbhata. It is further submitted by the learned Magistrate that even if he wish to take up the matter on priority, it is not possible for the reason that inspite of repeated opportunities given for years, the prosecution has not been able to produce the most material witness, Dr. Jagroop Mal Lodha. It is reported that Dr. Lodha has retired long back. He is suffering from Paralysis. Jagroop Mal Lodha. It is reported that Dr. Lodha has retired long back. He is suffering from Paralysis. It is not possible for him to travel from Jodhpur to Bengu and appear before the trial court it is a fact that large number of courts at Magistrate level are lying vacant in the State of Rajasthan as appointments are not being made. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that neither the petitioner nor the Magistrate is responsible for delay in trial. Dr. Jagroop Mal Lodha is the material witness in the case. It is not possible to procure his attendance before the said court. The petitioner is attending the court for the last 20 years. Trial has become almost a futile exercise. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the view that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and quash the proceeding to secure ends of justice. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 515/1989 State v. Motilal pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun stand quashed. *******