Judgment : The petitioners, who have been arrayed as A-3 and A-4 out of five accused and who are facing trial for the alleged offence under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2 (ia)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the Act), have come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against them in C.C. No. 1116 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem. 2. The allegation contained in the impugned complaint is to the effect that, the Food Inspector inspected the provision store of the first accused and said to have taken sample of the food article, viz., “Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta”, for which A-4 and A-5 are the manufacturers as per the impugned complaint, after following the procedure contemplated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules and sent the same for analysis and the Analyst Report is to the effect that the above said food article is found adulterated as the same does not conform to the standards prescribed under the Prevention of Food Rules 1955 for “Atta” with respect to Alcoholic Acidity. The Food Inspector after obtaining sanction from the Joint Director, Prevention of Food Adulteration, Chennai and filed the impugned complaint on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Salem, and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 1116 of 2004. 3. Mr. Habibullah Badsha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the Food Inspector has not followed the mandatory procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules and put forward the following contentions: “(1) The Food Inspector has not followed the mandatory provision under Rule 14 by taking the sample in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be sufficient to prevent leakage, evaporation or entrance of moisture; .(2) the Food Inspector has also not followed the mandatory requirement contemplated under Rule 16 in respect of packing and sealing the samples ensuring the stopper shall be first fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit as the samples were packed only in a paper cover; and .(3) The mandatory provision under Section 13(2) of the Act was not followed as the manufacturing date of the pack is 110. 2003 and the date of expiry is 12. 2003 and the date of expiry is 12. 2004 and the prosecution was launched only on 12. 2004 and as a result, the petitioner has lost his right to send the samples for testing to Central Food Laboratory and as such the petitioner has lost his right to get the sample tested as the sample itself has expired as early as on 12. 2004.” 4. In support of the contentions, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: “1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 SC 970 ; 2. M. Chinnachamy and 3 Others v. R. Satyanarayanan 2001 (4) CTC 274 ; and 3. Shiv Dutt Raj V. State of Punjab 1986 FAC(3) 13 in respect of contravention of provision under Section 13(2) of the Act.” 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that as far as Rule 14 of the Act is concerned, there is no contravention. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Analyst Report discloses to the effect that the condition of seals on the container and the cover on receipt were found to be intact, and tallied with the specimen separately taken by the Food Inspector and there is no contravention of Rule 14 of the Act. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that Rule 13(2) of the act is violated in this case as the sample after the Analyst Report was sent belatedly to the Court and thereby, the sample itself become invalid for further analysis and ultimately, the petitioners lost their right, to send the same to Central Laboratory for analysis. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and also perused the impugned complaint and other materials available on record including the Analyst Report. 7. At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that there is much force in the contentions put forward by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. It is seen from the materials available on record that the Food Inspector has flagrantly contravened the provisions under Rule 14 and under Section 13(2) of the Rules and the Act. 8. Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads hereunder: “14. It is seen from the materials available on record that the Food Inspector has flagrantly contravened the provisions under Rule 14 and under Section 13(2) of the Rules and the Act. 8. Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 reads hereunder: “14. Manner of sending samples for analysis-Samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed.” A reading of the above said provision clearly shows that the samples of food articles to be sent for analysis after taking the samples in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation, or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and thereafter, it has to be sealed carefully. But in the instant case, even as per the averments contained in the impugned complaint, the Food Inspector has taken the food article, viz., “Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta” and divided the same into three equal portions and wrapped each food sample in a pack of 500 grams separately with thick brown paper and pasted it. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Food Inspector has not taken the samples either in clean dry bottles or Jars or in other suitable containers but taken the sample and wrapped the same with thick brown paper making it into packets which may result in leakage, evaporation and may not prevent, entrance of moisture and as such, there is a clear contravention of mandatory provision under Rule 14 of the Rules and as such, the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana Court in Shiv Dutt Raj v. State of Punjab (supra) and in that decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held as follows: “3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the sample purchased by the Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst in a packet instead of a container envisaged in Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that the sample purchased by the Food Inspector was sent to the Public Analyst in a packet instead of a container envisaged in Rules 14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It is, therefore, prayed that on account of the violation of the said Rules the impugned complaint and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof deserve to be quashed. This contention has to prevail in the light of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Gordhan Dass (Criminal Appeal No. 1053 of 1975), wherein a similar objection was upheld. It was held in this judgment that since the rules lay down that the sample should be sent to the Public Analyst in a dry and clean container, it is not open to the Food Inspector to send the sample in the form of a packet, which is likely to be tampered with. The present case is fully covered by the dictum of the State of Haryana v. Gordhan Dass (supra). Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P-1) and the proceedings taken against the petitioner in the Court of the trial Magistrate are hereby quashed.” 10. The principle laid down in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also admittedly the Food Inspector has taken the sample, viz., “Pillsbury Chakki Fresh Atta” and divided the same into three equal portions and wrapped each food sample in a pack of 500 grams separately with thick brown paper and pasted it and as such the samples were sent in packets in not in dry bottles or jars and as such there is a clear contravention of mandatory provision under Rule 14 of the Rules and as such the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed. 11. The Food Inspector has also contravened the mandatory provision under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 11. The Food Inspector has also contravened the mandatory provision under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 13(2) of the Act reads hereunder: “13 Report of Public Analyst- .(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particular have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 12. The resulting of Section 13(2) of the Act makes it crystal clear that on receipt of the Analyst Report the Local Health Authority shall after the institution of prosecution forward the copy of the analyst report to the accused concerned and to inform such persons that they may make an application before the Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the other portion of the sample of article to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. But in the instant case, it is seen that the date of manufacture of the sample is 110. 2003, the date of expiry of the article is dated 12. 2004, the Food Inspector obtained sanction for prosecution on 111. 2004 and the complaint was filed only on 10. 2004 and as such the complaint itself was filed after the expiry of the product, viz., sample as early as on 12. 2004 and as such the sample has become unfit for further analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and thereby the petitioners have lost their valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory which resulted in gave prejudice to the accused. 13. 2004 and as such the sample has become unfit for further analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and thereby the petitioners have lost their valuable right to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory which resulted in gave prejudice to the accused. 13. It is further relevant to refer the provision under Section 13(3) of the Act which reads hereunder: “13(3) The Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory under subsection 2(B) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-section (1). The above provision makes it crystal clear that the Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. Therefore, the accused is having a protection under Section 13(3) enabling him to exercise his right to send the sample for further analysis by the Central Food Laboratory and if such, right is denied the entire proceedings is definitely vitiated. 14. The Honourable Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram (supra) has held as follows: “When a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right should not be denied to him. The right is a reasonable one, because the certificate of the director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has to be given to the vendor in order that, for satisfaction and proper defence, he always be able to have the sample kept in his custody analysed by a greater expert, whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, e.g. delay in prosecution as a result of which the sample get highly decomposed and could not be analysed, the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to hold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though the report continues to be evidence in the facts contained therein.” 15. Therefore, in view of the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to send the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory as the sample itself was expired much earlier to the launching of the prosecution and therefore, the accused has been deprived of his indefeasible and valuable right to get the sample analysed toy the Central Food Laboratory which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice vitiating the entire proceedings. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and accordingly, the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 1116 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Salem, is hereby quashed and this petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.