ORDER 1. Arguments heard. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are as under: 1. That on 21.8.1991 one Food Inspector Shri B.S. Tomar, collected sample of iodized salt for analysis from. petitioner No.2. On being analyzed by the Public Analyst, it was found adulterated on the point that in place of 15 pm iodine there was only 9.81 pm iodine. On this ground the Food Inspector filed one complaint before CJM, Guna, presently which is pending at Criminal Case No. 458/92, against four accused persons (1) petitioner No.2 in the capacity of vendor (2) petitioner No.1 in the capacity of distributor and (3 & 4) respondents No.2 and 3 as manufacturer. 2. That despite several efforts made during the period of 10-12 years, the respondents No.3 and 4 could not be traced out. Then vide order dated 27.8.2004, the learned Magistrate declared respondents No.3 and 4 as absconded and framed charges against the petitioners on 14.10.2004 for the offence punishable under section 16(1A)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. That, impugning the order dated 27.8.2004 and dated 14.10.2004 the present petitioners filed one Criminal Revision No. 255/04. During pendency of revision, it was informed on affidavit that one Shankarlal who was managing director of the company, has died and thereafter company has been closed. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in absence of the manufacturer, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. For enquiry and reconsideration on these two points, while allowing the revision and quashing the charge, case was remanded with the following observations. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in absence of the manufacturer, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted. For enquiry and reconsideration on these two points, while allowing the revision and quashing the charge, case was remanded with the following observations. Þ-------- iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk esa izfriqujh{k.kdrkZ vkjksih Ø- 2 o 3 dks leUl Hksts tkus ij mudh vksj ls Jherh pkSgku ,MoksdsV us mifLFkr gksdj ,d iou dqekj vxzoky uked O;fDr dk "kiFki= rFkk tkeuxj E;qfufliy dkjiksjs"ku }kjk tkuh e`R;q izek.ki= izLrqr djrs gq, vfHkokd fy;k fd mDr daiuh dk eSusftax Mk;jsDVj "kadjyky Fkk] ftldh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj mDr daiuh vc lekIr gks pqdh gSA -------- ekeys dh mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g fof/kd iz"u Hkh varfoZfyr gqvk gS fd D;k iqujh{k.kdrkZ Ø- 1 o 2 dks vkjksih Ø-3 ls 4 ds vHkko esa vfHk;kstu ls laj{k.k izkIr gS] bl fcanq ij Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mHk;i{k dh fu;ekuqlkj lquokbZ dk volj iznÙk dj vkns"k djuk gksxk -------Aß Being aggrieved with order dated 19.7.2006, the present petition is for invoking the inherent powers of this Court, praying therein to set aside the impugned order as well as to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. 3. During the course of arguments, Shri Agrawal, has drawn attention on the following documents : 1. Order dated 22.9.2000 passed in Criminal Case No.261/95 by Additional CJM don. Order dated 29.7.2000 issued by Law and Legislative Department, Bhopal No. 1174/21-A (prosecution) and one order dated 22.6.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in Criminal Case No.8305/91 and has submitted that considering the importance of iodine, Government reconsidered the matter and some of the cases were withdrawn by applying under section 321 of CrPC. 2. Letter dated 1.8.1991 written on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 to petitioner No.1, informing him sending 240 bags of Swastik iodized salt including 200 bags of 1/2 kg. weight and 40 bags of 1 kg. weight. This salt was sent to petitioner No.1 vide Motor Transfer Receipt No.665 dated 1.8.1991. Invoice No. P/89/91-92 supports this consignment. 3. Notice issued by the Public Health Authority to petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 informing them about initiation of the proceeding in the Court of CJM Guna. weight and 40 bags of 1 kg. weight. This salt was sent to petitioner No.1 vide Motor Transfer Receipt No.665 dated 1.8.1991. Invoice No. P/89/91-92 supports this consignment. 3. Notice issued by the Public Health Authority to petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3 informing them about initiation of the proceeding in the Court of CJM Guna. He has submitted that the petitioners have purchased salt from respondents No.2 and 3 who was the manufacturer and sample of one packet was taken, out of those packets, by the Food Inspector (copies of the aforementioned documents have been received today through office which are taken on record). 4. Highlighting the provision of section 19 of the Act, Shri Agrawal further submits that in view of the se facts the petitioners are innocent and in absence of the main accused they should not be prosecuted. Although no document has been filed, however, during the course of arguments Shri Agrawal has informed the Court, that the concerning Food Inspector has died and this fact has come on the record of the trial Court. While drawing attention on the following two judgments of this Court in 1. Salahuddin v. State of M.P. [1999(I) Weekly Notes 15]; 2. Narendra Luxmikant Nigalye (Dr.) v. State of M.P. [ 1993 JLJ 298 ] he has also submitted, that the petitioners are facing trial since 1992, hence considering the circumstances, particularly the absence of the manufacturer, the criminal proceeding pending since long, deserves to be quashed. 5. Shri Mahore raised only one objection to the petition, that it is a second revision, filed on behalf of the petitioners, hence not maintainable. 6. It is admitted that first date fixed in Court was 20.4.1992, since then the case is pending for a period of 14 years. As observed by learned ASJ in impugned order dated 19.7.2006 quoted above, upto now no charge could be framed and trial has not begun. Hereinafter enquiry is to be conducted about the death of the managing director of respondents No.2 and 3 and along-with the consequences of his death, if death is proved. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.1 is a resident of Indore. It can very , well be understood that since 14 years petitioner No.1 is attending the dates fixed by the trial Court at Guna, which is admittedly about 280 kilometers away. It is also not disputed that petitioner No.1 is a resident of Indore. It can very , well be understood that since 14 years petitioner No.1 is attending the dates fixed by the trial Court at Guna, which is admittedly about 280 kilometers away. No doubt the offence prima facily appears serious against the society, however, the importance of the iodine can very well be understood by the aforementioned documents, order dated 22.9.2000 passed by Additional CJM, Lakhanadon, order issued by Law and Legislative Department dated 29.7.2000 and order dated 22.6.2001 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Indore. It appears that on the same footing when some cases for the same offence were filed in aforementioned two Courts those were withdrawn by the Government on the ground that in Madhya Pradesh, in water and other food stuffs, existence of iodine is available in sufficient quantity, hence Government is considering to remove' the requirement of iodine for the sale. It is clear from the arguments advanced on behalf of the State in the Court of CJM, Indore, while withdrawing the Criminal Case No.8305/91. The relevant part of the order of learned Magistrate is as under: Þ-------- Jh fot;oxhZ; dk rdZ ;g Hkh gS fd e/;izns"k ds Hkw&Hkkx esa ty ,oa vU; [kk| inkFkksZa esa vk;ksMhu dh ek=k izk—frd :i ls bruh gksrh gS fd vk;ksMkbZt ued dh vko";drk ugha gS vkSj jkT; "kklu bl ckjs esa Hkh fopkj dj jgh gS fd vk;ksMkbZt ued ds izfrca/k dks gVk fy;k tkosA ,slh fLFkfr ;fn vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk foØhr fd, tk jgs ued esa vk;kssMhu dh ek=k [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k fu;e] 1955 ds viasafMDl 15&, ds ekud Lrj ds vuqlkj ugha Hkh gS rc Hkh mlls ekuo thou ds LokLF; dks dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+rkA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) vfHk;kstu pykuk U;k;fgr eas mfpr gksxkA blfy, vfHk;kstu okil ysus dk ;g vkosnu&i= is"k fd;k gS------Aß 7. This is very important for the present case on two counts: 1. That the necessity of iodine in salt is not very material. 2. Some of the matters of similar nature were withdrawn by the Government pending in different Courts. Notwithdrawing the present matter appears to be discriminatory/unconstitutional, on the part of the Government. 8. This is very important for the present case on two counts: 1. That the necessity of iodine in salt is not very material. 2. Some of the matters of similar nature were withdrawn by the Government pending in different Courts. Notwithdrawing the present matter appears to be discriminatory/unconstitutional, on the part of the Government. 8. The relevant part of sub-section 2 of section 19 of the Act is quoted here under : "(2) A vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves : (a) that he purchased the article of food – (i) in a case where a licence is prescribed for the sale thereof from a duly licensed manufacture, distributor or dealer; (ii) .... (b) that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it." In present case, there is no allegation of breach of licence. In that way, it can be presumed that the parties were having valid licence. The letter dated 1.8.1991 written on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 to petitioner No.1, MTR 1.8.1991, Invoice dated 1.8.1991 as quoted herein above, indicate that the salt was purchased by petitioner No.1 from a licensed manufacturer in packets. As mentioned in the petition para 1 of petition, sealed packet was taken for sample. The relevant extract of para 1 is as under: "...That, the sample of iodised salt was taken on 21.8.1991 from the shop of applicant No.2. However, the same was sealed pack and at the relevant time the applicant No.2 was working as retailer of the sealed pack iodised salt." These averments as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, have not been countered by the State during the course of arguments. In view of this also the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the offence. It will be again material to prove on behalf of the prosecution that the sample was taken, sealed and kept under the procedure prescribed. In view of the fact mentioned during the arguments on behalf of the petitioners that concerning Food Inspector has died that' is also a point to be considered in the case which was already become old. It will be again material to prove on behalf of the prosecution that the sample was taken, sealed and kept under the procedure prescribed. In view of the fact mentioned during the arguments on behalf of the petitioners that concerning Food Inspector has died that' is also a point to be considered in the case which was already become old. In the circumstances, discussed herein above, the long pendency of the case is to be considered in the light of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Sonsidering this aspect while referring, the following observation of Hon'ble apex Court, in Sheela Barso v. Union of India "If an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to speedy trial would be violated unless, of course, the trial is held up an account of some interim order passed by a superior Court or the accused is responsible for the delay in the trial of the case. The consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right." In Narendra Luxmikant Nigalve (supra) case, which was pending since nine years, was quashed. Similar view has been taken by another Bench of this Court in Salahuddin's case (supra). 9. In the facts and circumstances as discussed herein above, this appears a fit case which also requires to be quashed. The only objection raised on behalf of the respondent State is that this being a second revision, petition is not maintainable. The present petition has been filed for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of CrPC and not as a revision under section 397 of CrPC it is true that in usual course once a party has already availed of the right of revision before the Court of Sessions, the same party again cannot avail that opportunity, as second revision is barred under section 397(3) of CrPC. When the similar situation came before the Hon'ble apex Court, it has been observed that in an appropriate cases High Court is not barred to invoke its inherent powers to remove the abuse of the process of the Court, appears in any of the order of its subordinate Courts. In the case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and another [ AIR 1997 SC 987 ], the Hon 'ble apex Court has observed as under: ".... It is, therefore, clear that the power of the High Court of continuous supervisory jurisdiction is of paramount importance to examine correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior Criminal Courts. .... In view of the above discussion, we hold that though the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of S.397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under section 482 of the Code as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under section 483, (he High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the Court below." This is a complete reply of the, objection raised by Shri Mahore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. In view of the all, as discussed herein above, this is one of the rare cases, in which invoking of the inherent powers, appear essential to secure the ends of justice and to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court. 10. Consequently, petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, it is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No.458/92. before CJM, Guna, is hereby quashed.