JUDGMENT M.C. Garg, J. 1. Petitioners have sought for quashing of a criminal complaint registered against them vide Criminal Case No. 2163/1997, pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Jabalpur instituted against them on the basis of a complaint filed by Food Inspector, who allegedly took samples of 600 grams of Kali Mirch out of consignment of 130 bags of Hari Mirch purchased by the petitioner No. 1 from Cochin on 31st January, 1997. It is alleged that sanction to prosecute the petitioner was obtained on 17th November, 1997, but the complaint was filed after 10 months, i.e., 20th November, 1997. It has been submitted that since then proceedings are pending in the Court of Magistrate and despite 17 hearings not even a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Learned Counsel also submits that the complaint having been filed after 10 months, petitioners had no opportunity to send second sample for testing within time. 2. With the aforesaid submission made at the Bar Counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of proceedings initiated at the instance of Food Inspector on 20th November, 1997 on the basis of sample taken on 30th January, 1997. 3. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that on 31-1-1997, Shri H.D. Dubey, Food Inspector visited the petitioner No. 1 office and took a sample of black pepper alleging it to be adulterated. Vide order dated 17-11-1997, the Deputy Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Jabalpur sanctioned for launching prosecution against the petitioners under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. As per the sanction, the Food Inspector filed the challan on 20-11-1997 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur. 5. The State Analyst vide his report dated 10-3-1997 found the black pepper to be adulterated. 6. The proceedings began in the Court from 20-11-1997 on which day the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, till today no action worth the name has been taken but the process of law has been abused, which is clearly depicted from the order-sheet from 20-11-1997 to 20-7-2011. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that a careful perusal of the order-sheet shows that on 90% of the dates the complainant remained absent while on some dates the Presiding Officer remained on leave. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that a careful perusal of the order-sheet shows that on 90% of the dates the complainant remained absent while on some dates the Presiding Officer remained on leave. On, every date of hearing if any of the accused could not appear for cogent reasons, the request to exempt the appearance was denied and warrant of arrest was issued. It is further submitted that the accused persons were called in the Court at 11.00 a.m. and were forced to remain present in Court till 5.00 p.m. The order-sheet dated 9-9-2009, which fortunately is typed written will reveal that on that day the complainant was absent, warrant of arrest were issued against the petitioners. It was also mentioned by the Counsel for the petitioners that his application under Section 203, Cr.P.C. be decided which is pending since long, but same has not been done and the case was adjourned to 7-10-2009 on that day also nothing was done. The last order sheet, dated 20-7-2011 will show that the complainant was absent. According to the petitioners, negligent delay in testing of 14 years itself is a good ground to quash the proceedings. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in such kind of case the proper course for this Court would be to direct Magistrate to dispose of the trial in time bound frame. 9. I have heard submissions of both sides and have perused the record. 10. Petitioner No. 1 is the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the name of Shri Mahila Grih Udyog Lijjat Papad. Its Head Office is at Mumbai and Branches all over India including Branch at Wright Town, Jabalpur. No doubt, the Food Inspector took sample from the office of the petitioner No. 1 on 31st January, 1997 of black pepper, which was found to be adulterated. It is also a matter of record that he filed complaint only on 17th November, 1997 and, therefore, opportunity to the petitioners for sending second sample under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act became available only summon in the complaint was served upon the petitioners. It is said that criminal proceedings must brought to an end as soon as possible. It is said that criminal proceedings must brought to an end as soon as possible. Moreover in a case of foodstuff where samples are taken second sample is also required for testing within specified time so that the sample may not become incapable of testing. 11. In the present case, in the light of filing of the complaint after 10 months, it can safely be said that the adequate opportunity to the petitioners for sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory was not available. Even otherwise there is no justification as to why proceedings have not been concluded even after 14 years despite the fact that there is no stay of the proceedings in this case. 12. It is also a matter of record that despite filing of petition under Section 203, Cr.P.C. for dismissal of complaint, no orders have been passed on that petition. As per the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal proceedings are required to be taken on day-to-day basis and disposed of as early as possible. However, this aspect has not been dealt with. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been at all able to explain why the case is not proceeding despite lapse of 14 years. 13. In a similar matter when the complaint was filed by the prosecution much belated this Court answering the provisions contained under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the light of a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Bhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani and another, reported in 2009 (II) Scale, while disposing of a matter under Section 482, Cr.P.C. quashed prosecution on the ground that in view of the delay in filing of the complaint, accused was deprived of his right under Section 13(2) of the Act. Order of the Apex Court was taken note of by this Court while delivering the judgment in the case of B.G. Subramanian and others v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 3908/2011, which reads as under:-- 11. The Apex Court has observed in Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are reproduced here under:-- 7. Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads as follows:-- Section 13(2). The Apex Court has observed in Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, which are reproduced here under:-- 7. Section 13(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 reads as follows:-- Section 13(2). Report of Public Analyst.-- (1) The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to. him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 10-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that it is so desired, either of both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 8. It will be apparent from the above, that only on receipt of the report of the Public Analyst under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, can a prosecution be launched and a copy of the report could be supplied to the accused. Sub-section (2) also indicates that on receipt of the report the accused could, if he so desired, make an application to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 9. In other words, in the instant case, the appellant was prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample before 17th July, 1989 by which time the second sample of curd had deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa Ram (supra), referred to above. 10. 9. In other words, in the instant case, the appellant was prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample before 17th July, 1989 by which time the second sample of curd had deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa Ram (supra), referred to above. 10. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal and also see no reason to continue with the proceedings which have lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable report with regard to the second sample. 12. Admittedly, the samples, which were taken on behalf of the respondents by the Food Inspector in both the cases, i.e., Soybean Oil as well as Sun Feast Glucose Biscuits, the Food Inspector had filed the complaints against the petitioners after expiry of shelf life of the products. 13. A reading of the aforesaid section goes to show that the right to send a second sample accrues in favour of the accused only after the complaint is filed, an intimation regarding the complaint is made known to the accused which in this case has not been done/complied with. Therefore, filing the complaint only after expiry of shelf life of the products the right to send the second sample for testing, which is vested right available to the petitioners were prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample. The delay in filing the complaint was malafide and negative. 14. In view of the aforesaid, there is merit in the contention of petitioners that the complaint filed against them by the Food Inspector with respect to the two samples on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst after expiry of the shelf period of the product, made the whole exercise redundant inasmuch as, once the complaint was filed after expiry of shelf life, a right to send the second sample became frustrated. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent can never succeeds and thus, the prosecution of the petitioner in both the cases deserves to be quashed. The aforesaid contention of the petitioners is directly supported by the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Girishbhai (supra). 15. Therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent can never succeeds and thus, the prosecution of the petitioner in both the cases deserves to be quashed. The aforesaid contention of the petitioners is directly supported by the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Girishbhai (supra). 15. In view of the aforesaid, both the petitioners filed by the petitioners are allowed and the complaint filed by respondent Food Inspector against the petitioners, which is subject matter of Misc. Cri. Case No. 6461 of 08 and Misc. Cri. Case No. 3908 of 11 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mhow and Neemuch respectively are hereby quashed. 14. In the present case also, admittedly, the complaint was filed by the respondent only after one year of the taking of the sample. As stated above, no evidence has been led by the prosecution for a period of more than 11 years. For both these reasons, I accept the submission made by the petitioners that they have been adversely affected and continuation of the prosecution in this case is an abuse of the process of Law Court. 15. It is well-settled that Article 21 requires speedy trial of a criminal case. It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225 , that fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Art. 21 and is also reflected in Section 309 of Cr.P.C., this right comprehends all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. Thus, it is mandate of the Constitution that proceedings must be concluded with reasonable despatch. If there is delay, burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. 16. In the present case, there is no explanation available which may explain the delay. There is also nothing on record which may show, that the delay has occurred because of the petitioners. It is surprising that not even a single witness could be examined by the prosecution in a period of 11 years after filing of the complaint. Thus, the delay which has occurred is certainly in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and mandates bringing to an end to the prosecution in such a case. It is surprising that not even a single witness could be examined by the prosecution in a period of 11 years after filing of the complaint. Thus, the delay which has occurred is certainly in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and mandates bringing to an end to the prosecution in such a case. Considering the fact that in this case complaint was filed after one year and no progress has taken place for about 14 years since filing of the complaint, no evidence at all has been recorded, it is a fit case where, proceedings are liable to be quashed on the point of delay. Consequently, the petition filed by the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings are quashed. The bail bonds of the petitioners are discharged.