JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the continuation of criminal proceeding for over two decades before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk under various provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('the Act' for short), the petitioners have approached this court. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1, M/s. Ambika Industries, was manufacturing oral and liquid drugs, under a licence granted under the Act. On 31-1-1987, a Drug Inspector visited M/s. Gautam Medicals, a retailer shop and purchased four samples of Analgin syrup, bearing batch No.AML-412. The said syrup was manufactured in April,1985 and was due to expire in March,1988. The Inspector not only sealed four samples, but also took signatures of Mr.Dinesh Gautam, the Proprietor of M/s. Gautam Chemicals. The samples were sent to the Government Analyst at Jaipur. According to the report, dated 17-3-1987, the medicine did not match the standard quality. Thereafter, on 19-3-1987 and 2-5-1987, the Drug Inspector inquired from M/s. Dinesh Gautam the address from where the medicine was bought. Vide letter dated 27-5-1987, Mr. Dinesh Gautam informed the Drug Inspector that he had purchased the medicine from M/s. Prabha Medical at Deoli. Thereafter on 3-7-1987, the Drug Inspector sent a sample along with test report to M/s. Prabha Medical, at Deoli. The premises of M/s. Prabha Medical, at Deoli was also searched. Mr. Suresh Gautam, proprietor of M/s. Prabha Medical, Deoli, informed the Drug Inspector that he has been purchasing the medicine from M/s. Ahuja Pharma, Jaipur. As mentioned above, the drug in question completed its shelf-life in March,1988. However, it was not till 7-3-1989, that the Drug Inspector inquired from M/s.Ahuja Pharma, as to the place where from it had bought the said medicine. On 8-3-1989, M/s. Ahuja Pharma informed the Drug Inspector that, in fact, it had bought the drug in question from M/s. Ambika Industries, the petitioner No.1. Interestingly, without giving any sample, without furnishing a copy of the test report to M/s. Ambika Industries, on 2-5-1989, the Drug Controller, Rajasthan, Jaipur gave permission to the Drug Inspector to file the complaint before the competent authority. Thereafter, on 27-6-1989, the Drug Inspector lodged a complaint against eleven accused persons, including the petitioners No.1 to 5, who are arrayed as accused No.7 to 11 in the complaint. Thereafter, on 27-6-1989, the Drug Inspector lodged a complaint against eleven accused persons, including the petitioners No.1 to 5, who are arrayed as accused No.7 to 11 in the complaint. On 31-5-1990, the petitioners No. 1 to 4 appeared before the court, but did not apply for sending the sample to Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. However, when the petitioner No.5, Ravindra Pal Singh, appeared before the court on 11-11-1997, he immediately filed an application for sending the sample for further analysis by the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. Vide order dated 28-9-199, the Court allowed the application and directed that the sample be sent for further analysis. Although, the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta sent its report in 2000, but it has not been received so far by the court. Despite non-availability of the report, the trial is still continuing inspite of lapse of twenty-two years. Hence, this petition is before this Court. 3. Mr. J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that despite the fact that seven witnesses are to be examined by the prosecution, so far not a single witness has been examined. The case has been hanging fire for the last twenty-two years. Thus the right of speedy trial has been violated. Secondly, that no sample of alleged spurious drug was ever given to the petitioner No.1. Thirdly, according to the sample the expiry date of the medicine was March,1988. However, the criminal complaint was not filed till June, 1989. The complaint was filed after the life span of the medicine was over. Hence, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample tested from an independent Chemical Analyst has been violated. Relying on the case of Gupta Chemicals Private Limited and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 735 , Northern Mineral Limited v. Union of India, 2010(2) WLC (SC) Cri 283 : (2010) 7 SCC 726 , and M/s. Tikayat Kishan Vikas Kendra & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2005 (9) RDD 3721 , the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the shelf-life of the medicine is over, the right to get the sample tested by an independent chemical analyst is denied. Therefore, the criminal proceeding should be quashed. 4. On the other hand , Mr. Therefore, the criminal proceeding should be quashed. 4. On the other hand , Mr. Piyush Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the sale of spurious drug is a serious offence, which should be controlled. Merely because the case has been pending for the last twenty-two years, does not mean that the petitioners should not be tried. If they were found guilty, they deserve to be punished for the crime. Secondly, merely because the sample could not be tested by an independent chemical analyst, it does not absolve the petitioners of the criminal liability; for there can be other evidence which can be produced by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right of a person. According to Criminal Jurisprudence every man is presumed to be innocent till proven guilt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the State. Thus, the presumption lies in favour of the accused. The battle is between the accused and the leviathan State. Faced with the mighty power of the State, Criminal Jurisprudence has always protected the accused. One of the basic rights of an accused is the right of speedy trial. According to Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said right begins from lodging of the complaint itself, and it continues till conclusion of the trial. The trial should be concluded as expeditiously as possible. Moreover, according to deterrent theory of punishment, the longer the trial, the less effective the punishment. Therefore, both in the interest of accused, and in the interest of society, a trial has to be concluded as speedily as possible. [Refer to Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2009(1) WLC (SC) Cri 565 : (2009) 3 SCC 355 ]. 7. Admittedly, the present case was initiated by filing criminal complaint on 27-6-1989. Despite the lapse of twenty-two years, the prosecution is yet to examine a single witness. Obviously, the petitioners has been forced to face a trial for over two decades. Hence, their right of speedy trial has been violated. 8. 7. Admittedly, the present case was initiated by filing criminal complaint on 27-6-1989. Despite the lapse of twenty-two years, the prosecution is yet to examine a single witness. Obviously, the petitioners has been forced to face a trial for over two decades. Hence, their right of speedy trial has been violated. 8. Under Section 25 (4) of the Act, an offender, who express his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, has to be given an opportunity to have the sample of the drug sent for further testing. The right to have the drug tested by an independent analyst is a valuable right of the accused. In the case of Gupta Chemicals Private Limited and Others (supra) and Northern Mineral Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that in case the said right is denied, the entire trial stands vitiated. Therefore, it is imperative that not only the complaint should be filed during the shelf-life of the drug, but it is also essential that the accused should be produced before the court during the shelf-life of the drug. However, in the present case, the shelf-life of the drug in question expired in March,1988, yet the complaint was not filed in court till 27-6-1989. Hence, the drug had completed its life span even prior to the submission of the complaint. Even if the petitioners could be produced immediately after filing of the complaint, even then a valuable right of the petitioners would be illusionary. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the entire trial is vitiated. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the Misc. Petition is allowed. The Criminal proceeding of case No.128/1989, pending against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Tonk is, hereby, quashed set aside.Petition Allowed. *******