The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated when there is an inordinate delay in the trial process.

1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner for quashing proceedings of criminal case No. 159/98 (108/95) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954).

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

(i) That on 9.10.1986 P.W.1 Jagdish Vyas, Food Inspector filed a complaint (Ex.P/9) against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbatsar stating that on 17.8.1986 at about 10 a.m. he inspected the milk which was being sold by the accused petitioner in Makrana Municipal Area and he purchased 660 ml. Milk @ Rs. 3 per kg. and paid a sum of As. 2.25 to the petitioner and after completing all the formalities, the milk was sent for analysis to the State. Laboratory and the milk was found to be adulterated. Hence, the complaint (Ex.P/9) was filed under Section 16 of the Act of 1954.

(ii) That an application under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 was filed by the accused petitioner on 18.10.1986 with a prayer that one of the samples be got tested from Central Food Laboratory, but due to the reasons best known to the concerned Officer of that Court, that application was not decided up to 22.9.2000.

(iii) After filing of the complaint, contents of offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 were read over to the accused petitioner and thereafter statements were recorded and the case was fixed for final arguments and order-sheet of the trial court reveals hat on 15.10.1999 the final arguments were heard and the case was adjourned for pronouncement judgement to 28.10.1999. However, the judgement was not pronounced on 28.10.1999 and the case was adjourned for pronouncement of judgement on 11.11.1999, 19.11.1999 and 3.12.1999. However, on all these dates the judgement was not pronounced for the reasons. Since on previous two occasions, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, on 9.12.1999, he further fixed the case for further argument and judgement on 23.12.1999. Thereafter the case was adjourned for further arguments and judgement on 11.2.2000, 3.3.2000, 31.3.2000, 20.4.2000, 12.5.2000, 26.5.2000, 23.6.2000, and 10.8.2000. Thereafter on 24.8.2000 the case was adjourned on 14.9.2000 for further arguments. Ultimately on 14.9.2000, the accused petitioner submitted an application in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana that since he had earlier filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on 18.10.1986 and that application was not decided till date and hence before proceeding further, his application must have been decided. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate through order dated 22.9.2000 allowed that application dated 18.10.1986 and ordered that one of the samples be sent to the Central Food Laboratory and the case was fixed for report of the Central Food Laboratory on 13.10.2000.

(iv) In the above circumstances, it has been prayed by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the incident took place on 17.8.1986 and more than 18 years have elapsed and therefore, fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial has been infringed and hence the proceedings pending against him be quashed.

3. On the other hand the learned PP has submitted that the misc. petition filed by the petitioner has no force and does not require any interference by this Court.

4. Heard and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute on the point that the incident took place on 17.8.1986 and the application under Section 13(2) o' the Act of 1954 for getting the sample tested from Central Food Laboratory was filed. by the accused petitioner on 18.10.1986 and that application was decided through order dated 22.9.2000.

6. The question which arises for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether the present proceedings pending against the accused pet