Judgment :- The petitioners are Accused No. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.336 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram, Namakkal District and they have come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings against them. 2. The respondent/complainant is the Food Inspector of Rasipuram Municipality he has lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned against M/s.Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the first Accused, the second Accused who is the Quality Control Manager of the 1st Accused Company and the third Accused who is an administrative officer of the first Accused Company for manufacturing, distributing and selling the adulterated "7 UP" drink to the public and the Food Inspector. In the complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that as per the powers conferred upon him, he inspected the godown of the accused suspecting adulteration and taken sample from a bottle containing 300 ml of 7 UP which was meant for sale. He purchased six bottles of 300 ml "7 UP" at a cost of Rs.61.74 from the accused and obtained receipt for the same. On the 6 bottles taken by him, divided the samples into three parts, each part containing of two bottles, and he sent one part of 7UP drink to the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Palayamkottai enclosing Form VII under Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. After analysing the samples, the Public Analyst has opined that the sample is found to contain a foreign matter (A blue coloured wrapper of VCM into 50 paise freshner) which will affect the quality of the food and hence, it is not the quality demanded by the purchaser and it is to his prejudice. Thus, the sample is adulterated as per Section 2 (ia) (a) and (b) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thereafter, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioners on 06.06.2003 under Section 11 (1) (a) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rule 12 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the respondent preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram against the accused and it has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram on 11.08.2004 in C.C. No.336 of 2004. 3. Thereafter, after obtaining sanction from the Joint Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the respondent preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram against the accused and it has been taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram on 11.08.2004 in C.C. No.336 of 2004. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the samples has not been taken as per the law and further he contended that mandatory provisions under Section 13(2) of the Act as well as Rule 9-A of the Rules have not been complied with. Hence, he prays that the complaint has to be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent contended that samples has been taken as per the provisions of law and hence he prays that the petition has to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of the FIR it is seen that 6 bottles of "7 UP has been purchased and two samples have been taken from each three bottles and one such sample has been sent to the Public Analyst and report has been obtained, is not in dispute. As per the provisions of law out of 6 bottles of "7 UP", the complainant must have taken three samples after opening all the 6 bottles and after taken the three samples one such sample has to be sent to the Public Analyst for examination. But in this case the complainant has taken one sample from three bottles and other sample from other three bottles. Hence, I am of the view that the samples taken by the complainant is not in accordance with law. 6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it is made it clear that after getting report from the Public Analyst the complainant has to issue notice to the accused informing about the result and then only the accused can make application before the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the another sample of the article of food kept by the Local Health Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. But in this case notice has been issued highly belated. But in this case notice has been issued highly belated. From the perusal of the records it is seen that the Public Analyst submitted his report on 16.07.2003 and the respondent has sent a letter to the petitioners only on 18.01.2004. From this it is very clear that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing notice to the petitioners. 7. It is useful to refer the judgment of this Court rendered in Abdul Majeed v. State, by Food Inspector [1981 L.W. Cr. 305], wherein it has been held that even though there is no hard and fast rule laid down as to the period within which the prosecution should be launched, since there is no specific provision in the Act, or the Rules prescribing the period of limitation for instituting the prosecution, a conjoint reading of S.13 (2) and R.9-A gives an impression that the prosecution should be launched in all promptitude without causing any undue delay which would be prejudicial to the accused depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, provided the sanction has already been obtained by a general or special order. 8. From this, it is very clear that the sample has not been taken as per the procedure laid down by law. Public Analyst report has not been communicated to the petitioners informing them to avail the opportunity of sending another sample to Central Food Laboratory for getting second opinion. The petitioners were also denied the right of getting such opportunity. In view of the above said preposition laid down by this Court in 1981 L.W. Cr. 305 (supra), I am of the view that on both the grounds the complaint against the petitioners accused is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.336 of 2004 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Rasipuram, Namakkal District is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.