JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.33 of 2008 dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure P-4); summoning order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) and all the consequential proceedings arising thereto. 2. The case of the complainant as per the complaint, in brief, is that the complainant had inspected the premises of Bhushan Kumar on 16.11.2007 at 2.30 P.M. Bhushan Kumar was found in possession of 30 pouches weighing 210 grams each of VZ plus instant energy drink (proprietary food) for public sale. 3 pouches of VZ plus instant energy drink (proprietary food) were purchased by the complainant from Bhushan Kumar on payment. The said sample of the recovered food article was sent for chemical analysis. As per the report of the Analyst, the food article contained Sunset Yellow FCF synthetic food colour, whereas, it should be free from the same and hence, the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 7 (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint in question was initially filed against Bhushan Kumar. During his trial, an application was moved by Bhushan Kumar (Annexure P-3) for impleading the petitioner as an accused. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) and thereafter, the petitioner was summoned to face the trial. Since by then, the shelf life of the food article had already expired, the petitioner had lost its valuable right to get the second sample retested from the Central Food Laboratory. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the sample was only described as ‘best before 18 months from the date of its manufacture’. Further the petitioner had not moved an application for permission to get second sample re-tested. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Further the petitioner had not moved an application for permission to get second sample re-tested. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 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.” 6. It is evident from the report of the Public Analyst, Haryana dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) that the food article was ‘best before 18 months from the date of manufacture’. However, in the present case, the petitioner had been impleaded as an accused vide order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) i.e. much after the shelf life of the food article has expired. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint No.33 of 2008 dated 18.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) and all subsequent proceedings arising thereto including summoning order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) are quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------