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. 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,