JUDGMENT R.K. Saxena, J. - Sample of milk being carried for sale by the applicant Shyam Babu, was taken by the Food Inspector, Mathura on the 31st of May, 1983. It was sent to the Public Analyst, Varanasi for analysis and report. The Public Analyst reported on the 22nd of June, 1983 that the sample was adulterated. In compliance of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, a notice was sent to the applicant with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst requiring him to reply within 10 days of the receipt of the notice, if the applicant wanted it to be analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. This notice is dated 15.10.1984. The applicant received it on 19.10.1984. He moved an application on 20.10.1984 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Mathura requesting that the sample be sent for analysis to Calcutta. The applicant complied with the directions of the Court in so far as it related to the expenses, which were to be incurred in sending the phial to Calcutta. There is an order dated 1.1.1987 passed by the Judicial, Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 634/II/84, State v. Shyam Babu and others, started on the complaint of the Food Inspector against the applicant and another to the effect sufficient time has lapsed since the collection of the sample and, therefore, it was not necessary, rather would be fruitless to obtain another report. The application was, therefore, rejected. The Magistrate directed that the case shall proceed. 2. The applicants have moved this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceeding be quashed as it would be a futile effort which will yield no result. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State although sufficient time was given. 4. The facts stated above speak volumes and go to clearly show that the applicants have been deprived of a valuable right given to them under the said Act in regard in the sample from the Central Food Laboratory at Calcutta. The result is obvious, namely, the matter cannot end in conviction. It is interesting to find that 17 months had elapsed between the collection of the sample and the sending of the notice and thereafter, sufficient time war. taken by the Court below in doing the needful. The result is obvious, namely, the matter cannot end in conviction. It is interesting to find that 17 months had elapsed between the collection of the sample and the sending of the notice and thereafter, sufficient time war. taken by the Court below in doing the needful. I feel, it will be an abuse of the process of the court and wastage of time if the proceedings are allowed to continue. 5. The petition is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 634/II/84, State v. Shyam Babu and others, are quashed.