ORDER :

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings be dropped against the petitioner as second sample sent to Central Food Laboratory has been found unfit as shelf life thereof had expired.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that samples of cow milk, after necessary formalities, were drawn on 22.5.1996. Learned counsel contends that the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. Learned counsel contends that since second sample has not been found fit, a valuable right of the petitioner stands defeated and therefore, the proceedings be dropped.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of above said argument, has relied upon Vishram Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 66, Onkarlal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1393, Chandra Shekhar Lakhotia & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2012(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 487, to contend that the very fact that second sample was found unfit is sufficient to hold that continuation of proceedings will serve no useful purpose.

4. I am not impressed by the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, the judgments relied by the learned counsel are not attracted on the facts of the present case.

5. Legislature in the scheme of things, has noted in Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) that after report of Public Analyst is received by the Food Inspector, in pursuance thereof, if necessary complaint shall be filed by the Food Inspector. Thereafter, he shall send a notice to the accused on the address noted in the memo taking sample calling him that, if the accused so desire, he can seek analysis of second sample. There is no need to say that the report of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report of Public Analyst. In the present case, no averment has been made in the present petition that the Food Inspector had not sent any notice or the petitioner had not received any notice. Therefore, if an application has been filed after inordinate delay seeking analysis of second sample when shelf life of second sample had already expired, no benefit shall accrue to the accused. Accused has to be diligent in seeking testing of second sample after receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by the Health Authority. For ready reference, Section 13(2) of the Act is reproduced below:-

“13. Report of Public analyst.— (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.

(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person , if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report (Emphasis Supplied) to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.”

6. Food items are perishable. To enhance the life of food items, preservative is added. Milk very soon become unfit for human consumption and analysis by the public analyst, therefore, time is essence so far analysis of food item by the public analyst or Central Food Laboratory is concerned. It may be noted that to preserve the milk, drops of formalin are added. Legislature was aware that in the matters of testing of food items time is crucial and therefore, time limit