Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This is a petition for quashing the complaint dated November 18, 1992 (Annexure P4). 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a milk vendor. On September 17, 1987 the Food Inspector took a sample of buffalo milk from a person, namely, Harpinder Singh, who was allegedly working for the petitioner. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Chandigarh, who vide report dated October 14, 1987 opined that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. 3. After receipt of the report, the Food Inspector sent a complaint to the Director, Health Services, for his written consent/sanction in order to launch prosecution against the petitioner. The sanction was received by the Food Inspector in June 1988. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on July 16, 1987 against the petitioner and also against his accomplice Harpinder Singh. 4. The complaint was presented for the framing of the charge. The counsel for the accused contended before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, that the sanction was granted only in the case of Harpinder and no sanction was granted in the case of the petitioner. Hence, no case was made out against the present petitioner. 5. After hearing the parties, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, vide order dated January 25, 1991, held that no prima facie case was made out against the present petitioner Harbans Lal under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consequently, the petitioner was discharged. However, his co-accused Harpinder Singh was charge-sheeted. 6. As no sanction had been obtained against the petitioner, therefore, a fresh sanction was obtained against him from the Director, Health Services, Punjab, and on receiving the sanction, the present complaint was filed on November 18, 1992 (Annexure P4). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the petitioner stood discharged by the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the filing of a fresh complaint was not maintainable. It was further contended that for the negligence of the prosecution in not having obtained the sanction against the petitioner, he cannot be made to suffer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Lachhman Dass v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 F.A.J. 440. It was further contended that for the negligence of the prosecution in not having obtained the sanction against the petitioner, he cannot be made to suffer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Lachhman Dass v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 F.A.J. 440. In the present case the petitioner was ordered to be discharged vide order dated January 25, 1995 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. This order attained finality as the same was not challenged anywhere. A fresh complaint on the same set of facts was obviously not competent. The order of discharge was not challenged by the State. The second complaint was filed after a period of four years from the filing of the first complaint. Moreover, the sample of milk in the present case was taken in the year 1987. More than 15 years have elapsed since the taking of the sample. No useful purpose would be served in allowing the trial to continue. Where there is such an inordinate delay in prosecuting the case, then the trial of the accused would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the complaint (Annexure P4) as well as all the subsequent proceedings, which may have been undertaken pursuant to the filing of the complaint, are quashed. Petition allowed.