The delay in trial must be considered in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case, and a rigid and mathematical formula cannot be adopted to determine if the delay amounts to an abuse of the process of the court or infringement of the right to speedy trial.

1. - This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code arises out of the Criminal Case No. 106/93 (State v. Bhanwarlal) under Section 7 read with 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'P..F.A. Act) pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat City, wherein the petitioner Bhanwarlal accused has prayed for quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay in trial.

2. The sample was taken on 30.4.1993 and charge-sheet was submitted on 9.12.1993. The petitioner entered appearance in the court on 4.2.1994 and submitted an application to send the second sample to Central Food Laboratory. The sample was sent on 15.2.1994 and the report was received on 6.4.1994. The case was thereafter listed for recording pre-charge evidence from 30.6.1994 to 27.8.1996 but no witness could be examined due to mainly non-appearance of the witnesses in the court on five dates. On two dates the summons were not issued by the officer and on 31.5.1996 Advocates were on strike. The first witness was examined on 28.10.1996. The charge was framed on 25.1.1997 because the Presiding Officer was on leave on 9.12.1996 and he was transferred and there was posting of new Presiding Officer on 5.2.1997 and 1.5.1997. Witnesses were summoned after framing the charge, who was present on 22.5.1998 but the court work was suspended due to sad demise of the father of an Advocate. Sanwal Singh was further examined on 7.11.1998. After three dates, P.W. 2 Aad Ram has been examined and the case proceeded for recording further prosecution evidence. The order-sheets have been made available upto 26.11.1999 which show that P.W. 3 Mohanlal was examined on 5.7.1999. Now the case is pending for completing the prosecution evidence.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has not completed its evidence even after six years Many times the Presiding Officer remained on leave or transferred and several times the clerk did not issue the summons. The petitioner is attending the court regularly for the last six years and he has undergone all sorts of physical and mental harassment and also loss of money. In this way, it is submitted that the right of the petitioner for speedy trial now interpreted as fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been violated and the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be released by quashing the proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the quashment of the proceedings on the ground that prosecution is not at fault in the delay of trial in the instant case. It is contended that case has to be adjourned on account of unavoidable reasons vis. leave by the Presiding Officer, transfer of the Presiding Officer, in the instant case, it has been adjourned due to the strike of the Advocates. Therefore, it is urged that the prosecution should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity even now to complete its evidence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the facts of this case are not such as to require the quashing of the proceedings.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1997 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 85 (Brahma Nand Agrawal & Ann v. The State of Rajasthan) to support his contention that even delay of six years infringes the right to speedy trial. The facts of the case are not applicable because in the above case orders for denovo trial were passed and prosecution evidence had to be recorded denovo and the case was not making any progress; whereas in the instant case the case has made progress definitely as denovo trial is not being conducted. Similarly the facts of the case Madan Singh v. State of Haryana (Punjab & Haryana) reported in 1991(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 859 are distinguishable because instead of summary trial warrant trial procedure was adopted for which the learned Magistr