GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 482 cr. P. C. by the petitioner, who is arrayed as a-2 in S. T. C. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the court of the District and Sessions Judge, ongole-cum-Special Court under Essential commodities Act, to quash the proceedings in the said case. ( 2 ) THE main contention urged by the learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. P. V. Vidya sagar is that the Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein are contrary to clause 30 of the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 and as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) CLAUSE 30 of the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 reads thus:"30. Time-limit for analysis, and communication of result:- (1) Whether sample of fertilizer has been drawn, the same shall be despatched, along with a memorandum in Form K to the laboratory for analysis within a period of seven days from the date of its drawal. (2) The laboratory shall analyse and forward the analysis report in Form L within 60 days from the date of receipt of the sample in the laboratory to the authority specified in the said memorandum. (3) The authority to whom the analysis report is sent under Sub-clause (2) shall communicate the result of the analysis to the dealer/manufacture/ pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of the analysis report of the laboratory. " ( 5 ) FROM a reading of the above clauses, it is clear that within a period of seven days from the date of the drawal of the sample, the sample shall be sent to the laboratory along with a Memorandum in From k and on such receipt, the laboratory, after analysing the same, shall analyse and forward the analysis report in Form l within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the sample and the authority concerned shall communicate the said result to the concerned dealer within a period of 30 days. ( 6 ) WHILE so, a reading of the complaint clearly establishes that the Assistant Director o f Agriculture, Singarayakonda, visited A-l premises on 30-9-1993, drew samples on the very same day and sent the same for analysis, which were received by the F. C. O. Laboratory, Anantapur on 8-10-1993. After analysing the same, the Assistant Director of agriculture, F. C. O. Laboratory, Anantapur, opined that the sample is not according to specifications and is non standard and accordingly submitted a report in proceedings No. FCO/tech/512/93 dated 9-11-1993. The Agricultural Officer, singarayakonda in turn sent the analysis report by his proceedings Rc. No. FCO MH 2/10793 dated 19-3-1996 to the accused, including the petitioner herein. The said procedure is clearly contrary to the mandate prescribed in clause 30. The time schedule prescribed under clause 30 of the Order for sending the sample to the Laboratory, the laboratory sending the report to the agricultural Officer concerned and furnishing of the report to the accused have tobe scrupulously followed and any violation thereof will defeat the prosecution. In the instant case, though there is compliance of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 30, admittedly, sub-clause (3) is violated as the analysis report dated 9-11-1993 was served along with show cause notice only on 19-3-19% i. e. , after the period of 60 days prescribed under sub-clause (3) of Clause 30. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein are liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in S. T. C. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the Court of District and sessions Judge cum Special Court under essential Commodities Act, Ongole, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.