IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.713 of 2000. M/s. Bhagwan Medical Agencies & Others VERSUS The State of Rajasthan through P.P. Date of Order :::: 09/02/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan None present for the Petitioners Mr. K.S. Chandel, Public Prosecutor for the State. By the Court : The Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, on which cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur. This petition has been preferred against the order of cognizance and for quashing the proceedings pending against them. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. On perusal of the documents, so submitted, it reveals that it is not the prosecution, which is delaying the proceedings. The order-sheets, so submitted reveal that the delay occurred because of the non-receipt of report of the Public Analyst in time with regard to the samples, which were sent for examination and the proceedings are pending for the evidence of the Food Inspector. It is surprised that since 1991 till 2000 the evidence could not be recorded and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned. The petition was preferred by the petitioners in 2000 and after a lapse of almost 8-years, this petition is being disposed of by this Court. It is true that the speedy trial is a right of the accused, which should not be fettered in any way either from the side of the prosecution or from the complainant side. The complainant, if he has submitted a complaint, being a public servant, it is his bounden duty to see that the complaint reaches to its conclusion, as early as possible. Though, only on this sole basis, the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be decided in favour of the petitioners, but simultaneously it is a right of the accused to get the proceedings disposed of, as early as possible. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed, but a direction is necessary to the trial Court to dispose of it, as early as possible on priority basis. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. But looking to the period already lapsed, the Lower Court is directed to decide the matter, as early as possible on priority basis. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/