( 1 ) ALL these criminal petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the question that arises for consideration is one and the same in all these petitions. ( 2 ) M/s. Tungabhadhra Chemicals and fertilizers Company Limited is the disturbing firm forfertilizers manufactured by M/s. Liberty phosphate Limited, Nadesari, Baroda District, gujarath State. It along with Area Manager/ authorized Signatory of the Tungabhadhra chemicals and Chemist of M/s. Liberty phosphate Limited moved this Court by filing the present criminal petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under ci. 19 (1) (a) (b) (c) (ii) (iii) of Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 (for short "the Control Order" ). ( 3 ) A short resume of facts is necessary for disposal of these petitions: ( 4 ) THE defacto complainants in all the criminal petitions are Assistant Directors of agriculture (Regular) working in various places in the District of Krishna. By virtue of notification N0. 498-A Food and Agriculture (FP-1) dt. 9-12-1985 issued by the government, they are treated as Registering authority and also Fertilizer Inspectors. They inspected the premises of the fertilizer shops in the District of Krishna. In C. C. No. 79/99 sample of single super phosphate was drawn on 26-11-1997 and in STC Nos. 64/2000. 15/2000,20/2000 and 6/99 samples of single super phosphate were drawn on 14-12-1998, 30-7-1998,19-8-98 and 20-8-98 respectively. In CC No. 79/99 sample was dispatched to the laboratory on 26-11 -1997. Complaints, in other cases, are silent about on which date samples were sent to the laboratory. Analyst report was received by the Fertilizer Inspector on 11-3-1998 in CC No. 79/99. In STC nos. 64/2000. 15/2000, 20/2000 and 6/99 analyst reports were received on 6-2-1999. 11-9-1999, 6-9-98 and 16-9-1998 respectively. Analyst report was served on the dealer-A-1 in CC No. 79/99 on 13-3-1998 and analyst report was served on A-1 on 15-2-1999 but not A-3 in STC No. 64/2000. Similarly, analyst report was served on A-1 in stc No. 15/2000 on 14-9-1998. Analyst report was served on A-1 on 22-9-1998 but not on a-3 and A-4 in STC No. 20/2000. Similarly, analyst report was served on A-1 in STC no. 6/99 on 23-9-1998 but not on A-2 and a-3. After service of analyst reports, complaints were filed in CC No. 79/99 on 10-11-1998, whereas in STC Nos. Analyst report was served on A-1 on 22-9-1998 but not on a-3 and A-4 in STC No. 20/2000. Similarly, analyst report was served on A-1 in STC no. 6/99 on 23-9-1998 but not on A-2 and a-3. After service of analyst reports, complaints were filed in CC No. 79/99 on 10-11-1998, whereas in STC Nos. 64/2000, 15/2000, 20/2000 and 6/99 on 29-10-99, 18-6-99, 18-6-99 and 29-7-99 respectively. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioner while relying on CI. 30 of the control order which envisages time limit for analysis and communication of the result contended that complaints do not disclose on what date samples were dispatched to the laboratory. He further relied on a decision of this court in district and Sessions Judge, Gunturv. State ofandhra Pradesh whereunder it was held that the time schedulefor sending the sample to the laboratory and the laboratory sending the report to the officer and the furnishing of the report to the accused have got to be scrupulously followed and any violation will defeat the prosecution. In view of the same, since prosecution failed to communicate the report within 15 days to the accused from the date of receipt of the report, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in crl. P. No. 2444 of 2000 dt. 5-7-2002 whereunder this court quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused for violation of the Control order observing that it 1. 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 103 (A. P.) = 2000 (1) ALD (Crl.) 268 (A. P. ). is the case of the manufacturer supplying the material to the distributor, ISI marks are not taken at a time and they have taken after lapse of seven months; the conditions under which the samples taken are not forthcoming and no allegations are made about the connected links in between the manufacturer and the dealer under the same transaction. It also found that non-mentioning of the measures and precautions taken as required under the Control Order as it cannot be proceeded with at this stage. It also found that non-mentioning of the measures and precautions taken as required under the Control Order as it cannot be proceeded with at this stage. ( 6 ) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor contends that if the complaints are silent about drawing samples and sending the same to the public analyst and non-furnishing of the public analyst reports to the petitioners in stc No. 64/2000, 15/2000, 20/2000 and 6/99, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage, as this is a matter which can be established during the course of trial. ( 7 ) A Division bench of this court in District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (1 supra) while upholding the validity of the Fertilizer control order held that the Fertilizer (control) order, 1985 including CI. 19 (1) thereof that does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and as such intra vires of the Constitution. Further this court held that three samples have to be drawn and one sample has to be given to the accused and the same cannot be dispensed with, the purpose of giving the sample to the accused becomes nugatory, if he is not given a right to get it tested by an independent agency and the fair procedure is violated by not providing such a right and such a right should be read into the Fertilizer (Control) order and Schedule ii appended to it. In the absence of any provision of for thedealer/manufacturerfacing the case forcancellation of licence/registration forviolation or facing the criminal prosecution for getting the sample tested from an independent analyst, the time schedule for sending the sample to the laboratory and laboratory sending the report to the Officer and thefurnishing of the report to the accused have got to be scrupulously followed and any violation will defeat the prosecution. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court in p. Ramachandra Rao. V. State of Karnataka held as follows:"the primary function of the judiciary is to interpret the law. It may lay down principles, guidelines and exhibit creativity in the field left open and unoccupied by legislation (see para 25 ). . . Courts can declare the law, they can interpret the law. (see para 27 ). Further in para 22 it was held: "legislation is that source of law which consists in the declaration of legal rules by a competent authority. . . Courts can declare the law, they can interpret the law. (see para 27 ). Further in para 22 it was held: "legislation is that source of law which consists in the declaration of legal rules by a competent authority. When Judges by judicial decisions lay down a new principle of general application of the nature specifically reserved for the legislature they may be said to have legislated and not merely declared the law. " ( 8 ) ONCE this courts makes it mandatory for drawing three samples and giving one sample to the accused, so that he can have tested the same by an independent agency, if disputes the correctness of analysis report furnished, such procedure to be followed will amount to legislation by reading it into rule will only have prospective in operation and will not defeat the prosecution already launched. Unless it is specifically declared so, then it will have retrospective in operation. In the absence of such declaration giving by retrospectivity, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be quashed since in all the case, prosecution was launched much prior to the judgment of this court dt. 30-6-1999. ( 9 ) THE said judgment must be read in consonance with CI. 30 of the Control Order, which reads as under: 2. (2002) (2) ALT (Crt.) 133 (SC) = (2002) 4 SCC 578 . 30. Time limit for analysis and communication of result:- (1) where sample of a fertilizer has been drawn, the same shall be dispatched, 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 analyze the sample 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/manufacturer/importer/ pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of analysis report of the laboratory. (3) The authority to whom the analysis report is sent under sub-clause (2) shall communicate the result of the analysis to the dealer/manufacturer/importer/ pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of analysis report of the laboratory. ( 10 ) A reading of the above clause clearly discloses that the authority to whom the analysis report is sent from the laboratory has to communicate the result to the dealer/ manufacturer/importer/pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of analysis report of the laboratory. Analysis report submitted to the accused from whom the sample was drawn have not complained any violation except petitioners until this court declared as referred to above. ( 11 ) FURTHER the judgment of the Supreme court in T. V. Usman v. Food Inspector, tellicherry Municipality was not brought to the notice of this court, wherein their Lordships while considering the rule 7 (3) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 requiring a copy of analyst report to be provided to the local health authority within a period of 45 days held that rule requiring a copy of the report of result of analyst to be provided to the local health authority is only directory but not mandatory. It further held as under: "11, In Rule 7 (3) no doubt the expression "shall" is used but it must be borne in mind that the rule deals with stages priorto launching the prosecution and it is also clear that by the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst the case is not yet instituted in the court and it is only on the basis of this report of the public Analyst that the authority concerned has to take a decision whether to institute a prosecution or not. There is no time-limit prescribed within which the prosecution has to be instituted and when there is no such limit prescribed then there is no valid reason for holding the period of 45 days as mandatory. Of course that does not mean that the Public Analyst can ignore the time-limit prescribed underthe rules. He must in all cases try to comply with the time-limit. Of course that does not mean that the Public Analyst can ignore the time-limit prescribed underthe rules. He must in all cases try to comply with the time-limit. But if there is some delay, in a given case, there is no reason to hold that the every report is void and on that basis to hold that even prosecution cannot be launched. May be, in a given case, if there is inordinate delay, the court may not attach any value to the report but merely because the time-limit is prescribed, it cannot be said that even a slight delay would render the report void or inadmissible in law. In this context it must be noted that Rule 7 (3) is only a procedural provision meant to speed up the process of investigation on the basis of which the prosecution has to be launched. No doubt, subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act confers valuable right on the accused under which provision the accused can be make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the receipt of copy of the report of Public analyst to get the samples of food analysed in the Central Food Laboratory and in case the sample is found by the said Central Food Laboratory unfit for analysis due to decomposition by passage of time or for any other reason attributable to the lapses on the side of prosecution, that valuable right would stand denied. This would constitute prejudice to the accused entitling him to acquittal but mere delay as such will not per se be fatal to the prosecution case even in cases where the sample continues to remain fit for analysis in spite of the delay because the accused is in no way prejudiced on the merits of the case in respect of such delay. Case No. Drawal of samples dispatch of samples to the laboratory analysis report received by the Fertilizer Inspector result of the report Communicated to the accused cc No. 79/99 STC No. . 64/2000 STC No. 15/2000 STC No. 20/2000 STC No. 6/99 26-11-97 14-12-98 30-7-98 19-8-98 20-8-98 26-11-97 11-3-98 6-2-99 11-9-=98 6-9-98 16-9-98 13-3-98 15-2-99 14-9-98 22-9-98 23-9-98 13. Case No. Drawal of samples dispatch of samples to the laboratory analysis report received by the Fertilizer Inspector result of the report Communicated to the accused cc No. 79/99 STC No. . 64/2000 STC No. 15/2000 STC No. 20/2000 STC No. 6/99 26-11-97 14-12-98 30-7-98 19-8-98 20-8-98 26-11-97 11-3-98 6-2-99 11-9-=98 6-9-98 16-9-98 13-3-98 15-2-99 14-9-98 22-9-98 23-9-98 13. In view of the same, the petitioners have to establish the prejudice caused to them due to delay in sending the sample to the laboratory and furnishing the report belatedly, they have deprived of taking steps to get the second sample tested, which is not fit for analysis and are entitled to acquittal. Unless the prejudice is shown to the petitioners by adducing sufficient evidence, proceedings cannot be quashed on the possible prejudice caused to the petitioners. Therefore it must be shown that the delay has led to the denial of right conferred under Section 13 (2) and that depends on the facts of each case and violation of the time-limit given in sub- rule (3) of Rule 7 by itself cannot be a ground for the prosecution case being thrown out. ( 12 ) THE date on which sample was drawn, despatch of sample to the laboratory, receipt of report by the Fertilizer Inspector and result of the report was communicated to the accused, are set out in the following table: all the criminal petitioners are accordingly dismissed.