JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an application under section 561-A of the Cr.P.C. praying that proceedings in the case under section 16 read with S. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the court of Sri D. S. Mathur, Magistrate 1st Class, Agra, against the applicant be quashed. 2. The relevant facts are that sample of curd is said to have been taken for analysis from the accused by the Food Inspector on the 19th of June, 1970. Complaint against the applicant was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari on the 2nd of November, 1970 and thereafter the accused was summoned by the court concerned and he actually appeared before that court on the 16th of November, 1970. After his appearance his learned counsel urged before the learned Magistrate that as the complaint was filed and the accused appeared before the court after nearly five months, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 the complaint against the applicant should be dismissed and the applicant discharged without framing any charge against him as the applicant had been deprived of his valuable rights u/sub-S. (2) of S. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 2nd December, 1970 rejected the plea and observed that the advantage of the delay could be given to the accused only if the Director of the Central Food Laboratory reported after examining the sample which may be sent to him, that the sample had become unfit for analysis. The learned Magistrate further observed that if the accused, i. e. the applicant before this Court. wanted, he could get the sample, handed over to him at the time the sample was taken, examined by the Director u/sub-S. (2) of S. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As the applicant felt aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, he filed this application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Mangalia, 1970 A.W.R. 667 and the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case reported in(3). It may be pointed out that the Full Bench decision of this Court was in respect of sample of milk. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the observations made by this Court in Nagar Swasthya Adhikari v. Mangalia, 1970 A.W.R. 667 and the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case reported in(3). It may be pointed out that the Full Bench decision of this Court was in respect of sample of milk. Moreover, in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Babulal Hargovindas v. Slate of Gujrat, 1971 A.W.R. 575 the said Full Bench decision of this Court does not appear to be correct. In the earlier case the sample was actually sent by the accused to the Director u/sub-S. (2) of S. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Director reported that the same had become unfit for analysis. In that case, moreover, the necessary quantity of preservative had not been put in the sample. It may also be pointed out that the Supreme Court observed in that case : "If in any case the accused does not choose to exercise this right, the case against him can be decided on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst." In the subsequent case the Supreme Court observed : "There is also in our view no justification for holding that the accused had no opportunity for sending the sample in his custody to the Director, Central Food Laboratory under section 13 (2) because he made no application to the court for sending it. It does not avail him at this stage to say that over four months had elapsed from the time the samples were taken to the time when the complaint was filed and consequently the sample had deteriorated and could not be analysed............No such defence is available to the appellant in this case because not only is there evidence that the preservative formalin was added but the appellant had not even made an application to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory." 4. From what has been discussed, it is apparent that it has now been held by the Supreme Court that it could not be held that the accused was deprived of the valuable right given u/sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the prevention of food Adulteration Act unless the accused actually tried to avail of the right by making an application to the court concerned to have the sample in his possession sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. it has already been pointed out that this case the learned Magistrate actually made such an offer to the accused. 5. Under the circumstances, I see no force in this application and reject it. The stay order is hereby vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to court concerned as early as possible so that the case against the applicant may be disposed of expeditiously.