JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.1 (North-II, Kota) and order dated 16.02.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed the order dated 12.07.1997 vide which the matter was restored was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court below for summoning petitioners and for passing appropriate orders on the restoration application. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that a sample of insecticide was taken on 12.07.1991, a complaint was filed before the trial Court on 19.03.1993. The Court below took cognizance and summoned the petitioners. On 14.10.1996 the proceedings were dropped and the petitioners were acquitted of the charge. An application was preferred by the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the matter was restored by order dated 12.07.1997. Revision petition was preferred by the petitioner against the restoration order which was allowed by order dated 21.03.1998 and the matter was remanded to the Court below. 3. The main contention of counsel for the petitioner is that after acquittal in a case, a complaint cannot be restored and after the restoration order was quashed the Court below has issued notice after a lapse of twelve years. 4. It is contended that the sentence provided for under the Act, is two years. The matter is pending for last twenty six years and after acquittal continuation of the proceedings tantamount to abuse of process of Court. 5. Public Prosecutor has opposed the miscellaneous petition. 6. I have considered the contentions in a matter which commenced on 12.07.1991 by taking to samples under the incentiside Act, the Court acquitted the petitioners on 14.10.1996. The Court after acquittal has restored the case to its original number which restoration order has been set aside by the revisional Court. The matter is now languishing before the Court for more than twenty six years and even after the order of the revisional Court, the petitioners were not summoned for a period of twelve years, the inordinate delay in proceeding with the case has resulted into grave injustice to the petitioners. 7. The matter is now languishing before the Court for more than twenty six years and even after the order of the revisional Court, the petitioners were not summoned for a period of twelve years, the inordinate delay in proceeding with the case has resulted into grave injustice to the petitioners. 7. I therefore deem it proper to invoke the inherent powers vested in the Court and set aside the proceedings pending before the trial Court more particularly for the reason that the petitioners have earlier being acquitted by the trial Court and there was no occasion was restoring the matter and re-summoning the petitioners. 8. In view of the above. The miscellaneous petition is allowed.