THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1823 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against them in S.T.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, wherein they are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the present crime was registered in the year 1995 and the case was numbered way back in the year 2001, so far not even a single witness is examined before the trial Court. The petitioners preferred the present petition challenging the contents of the complaint or the allegations made against them in the complaint. Admittedly, the petitioners approached this Court in the year 2008 and obtained stay. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed the entire adjudication passed by the trial Court from the date of taking cognizance of the case till the date of filing of the present petition. From a perusal of the entire adjudication, it is noticed that the case was adjourned for the following reasons:- (1) No Public Prosecutor appointed (2) Witnesses absent (3) Upon a memo filed by the Prosecutor reporting that the summons were misplaced, fresh summons issued. (4) Summons could not be served (5) Some of the witnesses expired (6) No Prosecutor appointed, etc. Thus, the entire reading of the adjudication reveals that without any valid reasons, the case is being adjourned from the year 2001 to 29.02.2008. On every date of hearings, the petitioners/accused either appeared in-person or represented through their counsel. After registration of the crime and filing of the charge sheet, the complainant has not taken any serious steps to prosecute the accused concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in A.R.Antuley v. R.S.Naik[1], Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India[2], P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka[3] and Rakesh Saxena v. State through C.B.I[4]. In the said cases, the Apex Court held that without any reasons, adjourning the case for a longer period will certainly cause prejudice to the accused concerned and also it is against the intendment of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which directs a speedy and impartial trial of the accused concerned. This is the case wherein the respondent investigating agency and the prosecuting agency failed to adopt proper methods for conclusion of trial. Hence, this Court is of the view that since there are no lapses on the part of the petitioners for the delay caused in disposing of the case before the trial Court, the proceedings against the petitioners in the said S.T.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Ongole, are liable to be quashed and the same are, therefore, quashed. This criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 17.03.2011 v v [1] 1992 (1) SCC 225 [2] (1978) 1 SCC 248 [3] (2002) 4 SCC 578 [4] (1986) Supp. SCC 505