R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has prayed to quash the proceeding in 2 (c) CC No. 32 of 1993 under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 (i) and (v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balliguda. ( 2 ) ON 27-3-1991 at about 11. 00 a. m. Food Inspector, Phulbani visited the shop of the petitioner and having suspected food articles viz. , Bengal gram Dal and Turmeric powder to be adulterated, made statutory purchase From there articles and kept the same in separate bottles. On the next day he sent one of the bottles from each article to the Analyst who on examination reported 'bengal gram dal' to be adulterated. On receipt of such report the Food Inspector obtained consent as required under law and launched prosecution against the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that after a long passage of time of taking sample i. e. more than two years prosecution was launched and because of such delay he has been highly prejudiced and, therefore, the proceeding should be quashed. In support of such contention he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Nebh Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) (1980) 2 FAC 191 : (1981 Cri LJ 3 ). ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY there has been delay of more than two years in launching prosecution, in as much as, samples were taken on 27-8-1991, Public Analyst report was received on 1-5-1991, but complaint was filed on 17-5-1993. The inaction and indifference on the part of the Food Inspector in not taking timely steps to launch prosecution is not appreciated, but then on the ground of more delay, the proceeding cannot be brought to a halt. ( 5 ) THE decision of the Apex Court in Nebh Raj's case (1981 Cri LJ 3) (Supra) has no application to the fact of the present case. In the said reported case, sample of Dal Biji was purchased from the shop of the accused on 17-10-1970 and Public Analyst having examined the same, about a week thereafter reported that it was adulterated because of presence of unpermitted coaltar dye. In the said reported case, sample of Dal Biji was purchased from the shop of the accused on 17-10-1970 and Public Analyst having examined the same, about a week thereafter reported that it was adulterated because of presence of unpermitted coaltar dye. On being moved by the accused the Court sent another part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and on examination the Director sent his report on 26-10-1973 that the sample was adulterated since it contained 42. 2% "free fatty acid as oleic acid" as against permissible 25%. The report also mentions that added to coaltar dyes were absent. On trial the Court found the accused guilty and convicted him. The said conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court. The accused then moved the Apex Court. A contention was raised on his behalf that since examination was made by the Central Food Laboratory nearly after three years of taking sample there was every possibility of the free fatty acid contained in the sample having increased enormously by oxidation due to storage. This contention was accepted by their Lordships and consequently the conviction and sentence recorded against him were set aside. Keeping all the facts and circumstances in view, their Lordships in the concluding paragraph observed that to launch prosecution at a belated stage may result in causing harassment to the accused in some cases and may also result in genuine offenders escaping punishment. In the case in hand, there is no material to show that the petitioner challenged the report of the Public Analyst by praying the Court to send one of the sample bottle of suspected article to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. When there is no material to show that due to delay in filing complaint after lapse of two years any prejudice or harassment has been caused to the petitioner the proceeding cannot be quashed. ( 6 ) ECONOMIC offences and offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which has the ultimate affect on the society should not be light heartedly interfered with at the initial stage by resorting to inherent power solely on the ground of delay. ( 6 ) ECONOMIC offences and offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which has the ultimate affect on the society should not be light heartedly interfered with at the initial stage by resorting to inherent power solely on the ground of delay. In this context it is worthwhile to refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation v. Narendra Keswan Mishra (1996) 1 SCJ 196 where their Lordships have expressed unhappiness in the High Court's interference in the case on the ground of delay in launching prosecution. In that case the accused was prosecuted or misappropriation of Rs. 2 lakh and odd. A departmental enquiry commenced in December, 1979 and the prosecution was laid in 1985 without there being any sanction. The Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground of want of sanction as required under S. 197, Cr. P. C. In 1991 sanction was obtained and thereafter prosecution was launched. This was challenged in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground of delay in launching prosecution after 15 years. The Apex Court did not approve such interference, but however, having regard to the distance of time their Lordships did not upset the High Court's order. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view the nature of case which has social impact, I am not inclined to quash the aforesaid proceeding in exercise of inherent power under S. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) IN the result the Criminal Misc. Case fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.