JUDGMENT : H.N. DEVANI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate for Mr. Devang Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2. 2. Rule. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 Food Inspector and Mr. I.M. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 State of Gujarat. By consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this application is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this application, the petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.58 of 1989 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Court No.8, Ahmedabad till Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15068 of 2007 is fir tally heard. 4. Mr. S.I. Nanavati, learned senior advocate has submitted that the sample of curd was seized on 8th April, 1988 and was sent for analysis to the public analyst. The report of the public analyst was received on 4th May 1988, however, thereafter after an inordinate delay of 15 months, the complaint was lodged on 17th July, 1989. 5. The attention of the Court is drawn to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to submit that on account of delay in lodging the complaint, the petitioner's valuable right to have the sample sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory has been taken away. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 970 a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of S.P. Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, 1998 CW 643. as well as the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Chinnachamy and other v. R. Satyanarayanan, 2001 CLJ 4443. 6. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has submitted that despite issuance of warrants, the petitioner has not remained present before the Trial Court. It is submitted that in these circumstances, tills Court may not grant the interim relief as prayed for in the petition. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior advocate, prima-facie, a case is made out for grant of interim relief. 8. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. It is submitted that in these circumstances, tills Court may not grant the interim relief as prayed for in the petition. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned senior advocate, prima-facie, a case is made out for grant of interim relief. 8. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. By way of interim relief, the proceedings of Criminal Case No.58 of 1989, pending before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.3, Ahmedabad, are hereby stayed, till the final disposal of the main application. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15068 of 2007 to be listed on the separate board for final hearing on 29th February, 2008. Direct Service today is permitted. Rule made Absolute.