ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the further proceedings against the petitioner-A-2 in STC. No. 84 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amudalavalasa. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent and perused the records. 3. The Food Inspector Amudalavasa filed a complaint against the petitioner-A-2 and another before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amudalavalasa alleging the offences under Sections 16(1)(a)(x)(ii) 7(i) and 2(I)(a)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). According to the complainant on 13-03-2001 at about 11.00 A.M. the Food Inspector of Srikakulam inspected the shop of A-1 and found Suma Chilli Powder packets kept for sale for human consumption. He purchased sample packets of the said chilli powder following the procedure prescribed and sent the same for analysis and the public analyst by his report dated 12-04-2001 stated that the samples contained caster oil and, therefore, they are adulterated and not fit for human consumption. Subsequently, the complainant obtained the consent of the Director of Food and Health Authority and filed the complaint on 22-04-2003. Learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence in S.T.C. No. 84 of 2003 and issued process to the accused. Aggrieved by the same A-2 filed the present petition. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the sample was taken on 13-03-2001 and though the analyst report was received within one month thereafter on 12-04-2001 there has been long and abnormal delay of more than 2 years in filing the complaint whereby the valuable right of the accused to send the sample for re-analysis to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13(2) of the Act has been lost. 5. It is not disputed that the sample was taken on 13-03-2001 and the analyst report was received promptly on 12-04-2001. The complaint was filed two years later on 22-04-2003 and thereafter the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner-A-2. Thus by the date of filing of the complaint and service of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, more than two years has elapsed since the date of lifting the sample. The complaint was filed two years later on 22-04-2003 and thereafter the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served on the petitioner-A-2. Thus by the date of filing of the complaint and service of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, more than two years has elapsed since the date of lifting the sample. Having regard to the fact that the subject food item is a chilli powder, there is every possibility of the contents of the said food item getting decomposed or deteriorated owing to passage of time, which in this case is more than two years and thereby rendering sample unfit for analysis. There is absolutely no reason or explanation forth coming from the complainant for the inordinate and abnormal delay of two years in filing the complaint after the sample was taken. 6. In a decision in Naresh Kumar Kedia v. Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine and others' the proceedings are quashed when the prosecution was launched with a delay of nearly one year eight months on the ground that valuable right of the accused has been denied because of the delay. In Konda Suryanarayana and others v. The State of A P.2 the proceedings were quashed observing that no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for analysis after lapse of two years nine months. In Vinod Namviar, Regional Sales Manager, (Foods) and others v. State of AP. rep. by Food Inspector the proceedings were quashed when there was a delay of 27 months in launching the complaint. In Nebh Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) and another it was held there is no justification for launching the prosecution with a delay of two years after sample was taken and after obtaining the report of the Public Analyst. 7. In a recent decision in Konda Suryanarayana and others v. State of AP.2 this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Nebh Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) and another wherein the practice of launching prosecution more than two years after the sample was taken was deprecated, held that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as there was long delay of three years between the date of taking sample and date of serving analyst report and thereby the valuable right conferred on the accused to send the remaining sample to the Central Food Laboratory was defeated. 8. 8. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions and having regard to the fact that more than two years have elapsed between the date of taking the sample and filing of the complaint, it must be held that valuable right of the accused to send the sample for reanalysis under Section 13(2) of the Act has been defeated thereby causing a serious prejudice to his defence. 9. In the circumstances it held that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Accordingly, further proceedings against the petitioner-A-2 in STC. No. 84 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amudalavalasa are held not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. 10. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.