JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for setting aside the order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P1) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur in case titled as ‘State vs. R. Muruganandam’ registered under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) alongwith all consequential proceedings arising thereto. 2. The case of the complainant-Government Food Inspector, in brief, was that on 22.6.2005 at about 1.00 p.m., when he had inspected the premises of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. situated at village Channo along with Dr. K.C.Goel, petitioner No.1 was found in possession of 1000 sealed packets of Lays Potato Chips (Special Tamato Tango) of 100 grams each meant for sale for human consumption. Complainant purchased nine sealed packets of Lays Potato Chips of 100 grams on payment of requisite price,. The packets so purchased were divided into three equal parts and they were made into sealed parcels. One sealed parcel was sent to the Public Analyst Punjab Chandigarh for analysis. The Public Analyst vide its report dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P3) opined that the contents of the sample contained Black Specks (Carbon Particles) and the same was adulterated and unfit for human consumption. Hence, the complaint was filed. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sample had been manufactured on 21.6.2005. It was mentioned on the food article that it was best before four months from the date of manufacture. The complaint was filed on 23.12.2005 and by that time, the shelf life of food article had expired. Hence, the valuable right of the petitioner to get the second sample tested has been frustrated. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. 5. A perusal of the form VI filled in by the Food Inspector, at the time of the drawing of the sample, reveals that the sample was drawn from the food articles which had been manufactured on 21.6.2005 and it was “best before four months from the date of the manufacture”. The complaint in question was, however, filed on 23.12.2005. Thus, the shelf life of the food article had already expired by that time. 6. The complaint in question was, however, filed on 23.12.2005. Thus, the shelf life of the food article had already expired by that time. 6. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:- “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 particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, 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.” Thus, in the present case, the valuable right of the petitioner had been frustrated as he could not get the second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory as by that time the shelf life of the Food article had already expired. On this ground alone, the complaint in question deserves to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P2) and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto including summoning order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P1) are quashed.