ORDER 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings of case No. 2355/94 whereby the petitioners have been prosectued for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. In, short, case- of prosecution was that the respondent No. 1 Food Inspector appointed by the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons alleging that on 29.3.93 at about 5.30 p.m. respondent No. 1 inspected a fast food shop known as "Crack Ice" situated at 56, New Palasia, Indore. It was alleged that during course of investigation the Food Inspector found that ice cream was stored in the shop for sale. In the complaint it was alleged that one Sunil Kumar Jain was in the management of the shop and one Anil Mahajan was the proprietor of the shop. It was alleged that sample of 900 gm. of ice cream called as 'King Alphonso' was purchased for a sum of Rs.126/- by the respondent No.1 for analysis from the accused Sunil Kumar Jain and obtained the receipt. Further case of prosecution was that the sample which was taken was divided into three equal parts and filled in three bottles, which were sealed after addition of preservative. It was alleged that one of the bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Bhopal for analysis and the remaining two bottles were deposited with the Local Health Authority, Indore. It was alleged that vide report dated 11.5.93 the Public Analyst declared that the sample did not conform to the standard laid down in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and as such adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was received by the Local Health Authority on 28.5.93. Thereafter on 6.4.94 i.e. after a lapse of one year approximately from the date of receipt of the sample, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the learned CJM, Indore. In the said complaint Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain who was running the shop at the relevant time and Mr. Anil Mahajan who was the proprietor of the shop and Kala Modi who was the proprietor of Modi Agencies, who has supplied the Ice Cream to the shop, were impleaded as accused. In the said complaint Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain who was running the shop at the relevant time and Mr. Anil Mahajan who was the proprietor of the shop and Kala Modi who was the proprietor of Modi Agencies, who has supplied the Ice Cream to the shop, were impleaded as accused. It was alleged that petitioner No.2 at the relevant time was the person nominated by the petitioner No.1 for the purpose of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the petitioner No.1 was the manufacturer of the Ice Cream. It was alleged that the petitioner and other accused have committed an offence which is punishable under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It was prayed that after taking cognizance of the offence the petitioners and other accused persons be convicted. 3. Mr. A.K. Chitle, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued at length and submits that after notice the petition was filed by the petitioners before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceedings which was numbered as 1859/04 and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.7.04 holding that the prayer of the petitioners for quashmcnt of the proceedings is premature. Learned counsel submits that the status of each of the accused is that the accused No.1 Sunil Kumar Jain and Smt. Kala Modi are absconding, while present petitioners are appearing regularly. It is submitted that the case was listed before the learned Court below from time to time and 70 dates have been fixed till this date, but the trial is making no progress since 1994. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2 is aged 70 years and at present is residing at Bangalore, while petitioner No.2 was earlier residing at Mumbai. It is submitted that since considerable time has lapsed and the evidence has yet to start in the matter, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that the petitioner No.2 is aged 70 years and at present is residing at Bangalore, while petitioner No.2 was earlier residing at Mumbai. It is submitted that since considerable time has lapsed and the evidence has yet to start in the matter, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Rakesh Saxena v. State, 1987 SCC (Cri) 156 whereby Hon 'ble Apex Court has quashed the proceedings on the ground that any further continuance of the prosecution after lapse of more than six years in the case of the appellant who was merely a trader at the lowest rung of the hierarchy in the Foreign Exchange Division of the Bank is uncalled for, particularly, in view of the complicated nature of the offence charged. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1988 (4) SCC 36 wherein Hon 'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was delay in investigation and commencement of trial. In this case investigation commenced in November 1976 and the case was registered on completion of the investigation in September 1977, while the cognizance was taken by the Court in March 1996. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Abdul Rahman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 wherein Hon 'ble Apex Court has observed that propositions meant to serve as guidelines. It was further observed that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard-and-fast rules. It was further observed that:- (1) Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speedy trial is also in public interest or that it serves the social interest also, does not make it any the less the right of the accused. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. 2. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. It is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances. 2. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view. 3. The concerns underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are: (a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction. (b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal: and (c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. 4. On the strength of aforesaid decisions learned counsel submits that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the criminal case filed against the petitioners be quashed. 5. C.R Karnik, learned Deputy, Government Advocate submits that there is no justification on the part of the petitioner for praying the quashment of the proceedings. It is submitted that there is no delay on the part of the respondent in prosecuting the case. It is submitted that vide order dated 22.7.2006 charges were framed against the petitioners and the case was listed for recording of evidence on 7.9.2006. It is submitted that on 23.2.2008 Smt. Kala Modi who is accused No.3 was not present, hence warrent of arrest was issued. It is submitted that Sunil Kumar Jain is also absconding right from the beginning. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case; no case is made out for the quashment of the proceedings and the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the alleged sample was taken on 29.3.1993. The report was received by the respondent No.1 on 28.5.1993. The complaint was filed on 6.4.1994 i.e. roughly after a year of receipt of the report of Public Analysit. 6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the alleged sample was taken on 29.3.1993. The report was received by the respondent No.1 on 28.5.1993. The complaint was filed on 6.4.1994 i.e. roughly after a year of receipt of the report of Public Analysit. There is no explanation on the part of the respondent for such an inn-ordinate delay in filing the prosecution. From perusal of the record it is evident that the case is pending since last 14 years for no fault of the petitioner No.2 who is nominee of the petitioner No.1 and senior citizen aged about 70 years. Undoubtedly, petitioner No.2 was not present on the spot at the time of inspection and was residing at Mumbai at the relevant time and is presently residing 'at Banglore. No step has been taken by the respondent to secure the presence of Sunil Kumar Jain and Smt. Kala Modi who have been shown as absconding. After going through the proceedings of the case, it can safely be said that the prosecution was not serious in early disposal of the criminal case. The prosecution itself started after lapse of more than 12 years when the statement of Harikishan Vajpayee was recorded on 27.2.06 as evident before charge who are avoiding the trial. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in various cases, this Court is of the view that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the respondent to continue the proceedings against the petitioners who have already faced the trial since more than 14 years. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2355/94 whereby the petitioners were prosecuted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 stands quashed. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of.