JUDGMENT 1. - The matter came up for consideration of the second stay application preferred by the accused. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint No.952/2011 (149/2004) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (referred to herein after as 'the Act of 1954'). 3. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the Food Inspector, Bhilwara inspected the premises of a shop named M/s.Damodar Lal and Co. on 30.8.1995. The vendor was found selling packed tins of Engine brand Mustard Oil. The Food Inspector expressed intention of purchasing sample of the said mustard oil for the purpose of having it analysed under the provisions of Act of 1954. Accordingly, a sealed tin of Engine Brand Mustard Oil was opened in front of the witnesses. 375 grams of oil was taken from the tin and was divided into three equal portions & sealed in separate bottles after making payment of cost thereof to the vendor. As per the details printed on the tin, the manufacturer of the oil was Shri Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mills). The vendor's representative informed the Food Inspector that the oil had been purchased from a firm named M/s. Isarlal Jhamkulal, Sadar Bazar, Chittorgarh vide a bill dated 6.7.1995. Copies of the Form No.VI prepared at the time of sampling were forwarded to the dealer M/s. Isarlal Jhamkulal, Sadar Bazar, Chittorgarh as well as the petitioner no.1 being the manufacturer. One part of the sample was forwarded to the public analyst for analysis from where a report dated 7.10.1995 was received certifying that the sample did not conform to the standards. 4. The Food Inspector accordingly filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on 21.5.1996 against the vendor, dealer and the present petitioner being the manufacturer of the adulterated mustard oil for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The petitioner company allegedly received information regarding filing of the complaint on 24.5.1996. 4. The Food Inspector accordingly filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara on 21.5.1996 against the vendor, dealer and the present petitioner being the manufacturer of the adulterated mustard oil for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954. The petitioner company allegedly received information regarding filing of the complaint on 24.5.1996. Its representative appeared in the Trial Court and filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 for getting the second oil sample retested through the Central Food Laboratory on 27.5.1996. 5. More than 14 years have elapsed since the application for re-analysis was filed but till date, the second sample has not been examined by the Central Food Laboratory. A synopsis of the relevant dates and events, which are material for the disposal of the instant misc. petition, are enumerated herein below:- 9.6.1995 Manufacturing date of Food Article i.e. Mustard Oil. 30.8.1995 Sample taken from vendor i.e. M/s. Damodar Lal & Co., Bhilwara. 31.8.1995 Sample sent to the Public Analyst. 7.10.1995 Report of public analyst received certifying that the sample did not conform to standards. 21.5.1996 Complaint filed by C.M.H.O., Bhilwara. 24.5.1996 Petitioners received information regarding filing of the complaint. 27.5.1996 Petitioner no.1 Hari Oil Mill's representative filed an application for having the second sample tested from C.F.L. 5.8.1996 The trial Court summoned the second sample from the office of C.M.H.O., Bhilwara. 22.10.1996) The matter kept on being adjourned on these dates for receiving the sample as well as for attendance of some of the co-accused. 4.2.1997 ) 9.5.1997 ) 22.8.1997 ) 24.10.1997) 6.3.1998 The order-sheet reads that the sample has been received. However, the P.O. was on leave. 11.5.1998 ) On these dates, the case was adjourned by the trial Court for attendance of the accused no.4. 31.7.1998 ) 23.10.1998) 8.1.1999 ) 12.3.1999 The matter was adjourned for reading over accusation to the accused. 28.5.1999 The trial Court again directed to summon the sample and documents in terms of the earlier order. 23.7.1999 ) The matter was adjourned for reading over accusation to the accused. 8.10.1999 ) 10.12.1999) 7.4.2000 Counsel for the accused filed an application for sending the sample for re-analysis at the State expenses. 14.7.2000 ) The matter was adjourned for reading over accusation to the accused. 13.10.2000) 12.1.2001 An information was given to the Court that one of the accused Jhamku Lal had expired. 8.10.1999 ) 10.12.1999) 7.4.2000 Counsel for the accused filed an application for sending the sample for re-analysis at the State expenses. 14.7.2000 ) The matter was adjourned for reading over accusation to the accused. 13.10.2000) 12.1.2001 An information was given to the Court that one of the accused Jhamku Lal had expired. Thus, verification of this fact was sought. 27.4.2001 ) The matter was adjourned for seeking verification of Jhamku Lal's death. 6.7.2001 ) 17.8.2001 ) 19.10.2001 The P.O. was on leave. 15.2.2002 The matter was adjourned for arguments on charge. 17.5.2002 ) The matter was adjourned for seeking 19.7.2002 ) verification of Jhamku Lal's death. 23.9.2002 The matter was transferred to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Bhilwara. 18.10.2002 Verification report regarding the death of Jhamku Lal sought. Denovo trial directed by trial Court. 2.11.2002 Charge framed against the accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 10.1.2003 The P.O. was on leave. 7.3.2003 The P.O. was on leave. 9.5.2003 The matter was adjourned for reading over the accusation. 19.9.2003 The matter was adjourned for the arguments on the application dated 7.4.2000. 10.10.2003 The P.O. expressed desire not to hear the matter. 28.10.2003)13.12. The matter was adjourned for receiving an order from the 2003) Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. 13.2.2004 ) Re-trial was ordered and the matter was adjourned for reading over of the accusation. 9.4.2004 28.4.2004 The case was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara under the orders of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. 9.11.2004 Information was given regarding the death of accused no.3 Ratan Lal. Verification report was summoned. Counsel for the accused requested that second sample be forwarded to C.F.L. for analysis and that the accused was ready to bear the expenses thereof. Sample was directed to be summoned from the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 24.11.2004) Sample was directed to be summoned from the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 8.12.2004 ) 10.1.2005 Trial Court directed that a letter be sent to C.M.H.O. for forwarding the sample. 14.2.2005 ) Same order was repeated. 28.3.2005 ) 2.6.2005 ) 8.8.2005 ) 14.11.2005) 6.1.2006 ) 20.3.2006 ) 7.6.2006 ) 1.8.2006 ) 30.10.2006) The matter was adjourned for getting the verification of death of Jhamku Lal. 10.1.2007 Verification report regarding the death of Jhamku Lal was received. Accordingly, the proceedings were dropped against him. 14.2.2005 ) Same order was repeated. 28.3.2005 ) 2.6.2005 ) 8.8.2005 ) 14.11.2005) 6.1.2006 ) 20.3.2006 ) 7.6.2006 ) 1.8.2006 ) 30.10.2006) The matter was adjourned for getting the verification of death of Jhamku Lal. 10.1.2007 Verification report regarding the death of Jhamku Lal was received. Accordingly, the proceedings were dropped against him. Verification report was sought regarding death of accused Ratan Lal. 10.4.2007 ) The case was adjourned for getting verification 11.7.2007 ) 22.9.2007 ) 22.11.2007) 6.2.2008 Verification report regarding death of Ratan Lal was received. The P.O. was on leave. 15.5.2008 ) The matter was then adjourned because the P.O. was on leave. 26.9.2008 ) 20.1.2009 ) 15.4.2009 ) 3.11.2009 The proceedings were dropped against Ratan Lal. 1.2.2010 Witnesses were summoned. 26.10.2010 The matter kept on being adjourned for summoning of the witnesses till 26.10.2010. On that day, the trial court again directed that the sample be summoned from the C.M.H.O. 1.2.2011 Application was preferred by the accused for dropping of the proceedings on the ground that the second sample was not forwarded to the C.F.L., despite prayer being made timely and thereby, the right of the accused to have the second sample analysed through C.F.L. was defeated on account of the undue delay. The said application was dismissed. 20.2.2011 Postage charges and packing material for analysis of the sample was deposited. 8.6.2011 A.P.P. prayed for time to renew the bank documents submitted towards the expenses of re-analysis of the sample. 12.7.2011 The matter was transferred from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. 5.8.2011 A.P.P. again sought time to renew the demand draft. The same prayer was made on 30.6.2012. 30.10.2012 For the first time, the sample was received in the Court. 11.12.2012 The trial Court directed the accused to deposit the cost of re-analysis of the sample. 6. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint on the ground that undue delay in forwarding the second sample for analysis has resulted into virtual deprivation of the mandatory right available to the accused to have the second sample analysed through the Central Food Laboratory and as such, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. 7. 7. Mr.Sheetal Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Bhai Dahyabhai Shah. v. C.C. Jani & Anr. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 64 and the decision of this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Lakhotia v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012(3) RLW 2683 (Raj.) , urged that the situation in this case is so grave that despite repeated directions of this Court, the second portion of the sample, which was lying in the office of C.M.H.O., Bhilwara, was not produced in the Court for nearly seventeen years. As per him, no useful purpose would be served by sending the sample for re-analysis from the C.F.L., after a delay of nearly nineteen years as the oil sample must have deteriorated by now. He submitted that it is a case of gross infringement of the statutory right to have the second sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory causing serious prejudice to the accused and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint deserve to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and urged that this Court had called for a report from the trial Court regarding the reasons of the delay occasioned in forwarding the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory. As per the report forwarded by the trial Court, the petitioner company/firm is itself to blame for the delay in analysis of the second sample from the C.F.L. as it failed to deposit the analysis charges in the Court for a long period of time. He, therefore, prayed that no interference is called for in the matter for quashing the proceedings by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 9. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. The fact regarding the accused having preferred the application for re-analysis of the second food sample through the Central Food Laboratory immediately on appearing before the trial court, is not disputed. The position of law i.e. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it existed before the year 1976, was that the accused was required to deposit the prescribed fee for analysis of the second food sample from the Central Food Laboratory. The position of law i.e. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as it existed before the year 1976, was that the accused was required to deposit the prescribed fee for analysis of the second food sample from the Central Food Laboratory. Thereafter, an amendment was brought in the Act in the year 1976 and the words, "On the payment of the prescribed fee" were deleted from Section 13(2). Thereby the field was thrown open springing up a debate as to who amongst the "accused", "the food inspector", "the local health authority" or "the court" was required to bear the expenses of the analysis of the second food sample from the Central Food Laboratory. Different High Courts had taken different views on the issue as to who was to bear the expenses of analysis and the situation was one of absolute uncertainty. 11. The controversy was finally laid to rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mansukhlal Shah & anr. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 4674 , wherein it was observed as under:- "On the contentions urged, the question that arises for our consideration is: "Where the accused, not being satisfied with correctness/accuracy of the report of the Public Analyst, exercises his right under section 13(2) of the Act to have a second part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, whether he is bound to pay the fee prescribed under Rule 4(6) of the Rules?" 5. When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, section 11 requires him to divide the sample into three parts and send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. Section 13(1) requires the Public Analyst to deliver a report of the result of the analysis of the said food sample to the Local (Health) Authority. Sub-section (2) of section 13 confers a valuable right on the accused to have another part of the sample of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, for a second opinion. Sub-sections (2), (2A), (2B), and (3) of section 13 which are relevant are extracted below: "13. Sub-section (2) of section 13 confers a valuable right on the accused to have another part of the sample of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, for a second opinion. Sub-sections (2), (2A), (2B), and (3) of section 13 which are relevant are extracted below: "13. Report of Public Analyst: (1): xxxxx (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 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. (2A) When an application is made to the court under sub-section (2), the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made, the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. (2B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2A), the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis. (3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2B) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1). 6. Rule 4 of the Rules relates to the analysis of food samples. The relevant portion of the said rule (as it stood at the relevant time) is extracted below: "Analysis of food samples- (1) (a) Samples of food for analysis under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act shall be sent either through a Messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in Form 1 in an outer cover addressed to the Director. xxxxxxxxx (5) After test or analysis the certificate thereof shall be supplied forthwith to the sender in Form II. (6) The fees payable in respect of such a certificate shall be Rs. 200 per sample of food analysed. xxxxxxxxx" Clause (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules as it originally stood prescribed a fee of Rs. 40/-. The rule was amended twice, first with effect from 24.8.1995 substituting the figure of Rs. 200/- for Rs. 40/- and again with effect from 20.5.1999 substituting the figure of Rs. 1000/- for Rs. 200/-. 7. The procedure for getting a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, as laid down in sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of section 13 can be summarised thus: (i) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis from the Public Analyst, the Local (Health) Authority is required to forward a copy of the result of the analysis by the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken (as also the vendor, if any, from whom such person purchased the article of food). (ii) While so forwarding the report, the Local (Health) Authority is also required to inform the said persons (the accused) that if they so desire, either or both of them may make an application to the court within ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report, to get the second portion of the sample (kept by the Local (Health) Authority) analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. (iii) When an application is made by such persons (accused), the court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the parts of the sample kept by it; and the Local (Health) Authority shall forward the parts of the sample to the Court within five days from the date of receipt of requisition from the court. (iv) On receipt of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority, the Court shall despatch one part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. (v) The Central Food Laboratory has to analyse the sample and send a report (certificate) in respect of the result of the analysis of such sample to the court. Section 13 does not require payment of any fee to the Central Food Laboratory for the second analysis. Nor does it say that the complainant/State or Local (Health) Authority should bear the cost of second analysis. Nor does it say that when an accused makes an application for a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, such analysis shall be done free of cost. In fact section 13 does not deal with the fee part. Other provisions deal with the fee to be paid. Section 4 requires the Central Government to establish one or more Central Food Laboratories (or specify any Laboratory or Institute as a Central Food Laboratory) to carry out the functions entrusted to the Central Food Laboratory by the Act or the Rules made under the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 4 empowers the Central Government to make rules prescribing the procedure for submission of samples for analysis/tests to the Central Food Laboratory, the forms of the Laboratory's Reports and the fees payable in respect of such reports. Rule 4(6) of the Rules provides that a fee of Rs. 200 (now Rs. 1000) should be paid to the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate under Section 13(2) of the Act. Form-I of Appendix-A to the Rules makes it clear that when the court sends a requisition to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis of the sample under sub-section 13(2) of the Act, the court is required to enclose a demand draft for the amount of fee for analysis. Form-I of Appendix-A to the Rules makes it clear that when the court sends a requisition to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis of the sample under sub-section 13(2) of the Act, the court is required to enclose a demand draft for the amount of fee for analysis. Section 13(2) when read with section 4(2)(b) and Rule 4, makes it clear that the analysis by the Central Food Laboratory is not free of cost, but subject to payment of the prescribed fee and that such fee should be paid in advance. The non-mention of fee in section 13 does not mean that the provision for payment of fee under section 4(2) (b) read with Rule 4(6) is negated or rendered obsolete. The question is who should bear and pay the prescribed fee? 8. The payment to Central Food Laboratory due under Rule 4(6) has to come from someone. Logically the choices are (a) the complainant (Food Inspector/State); (b) the Local (Health) Authority; (c) the Court; (d) the person who requires the second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. 8.1) The Food Inspector (who is the complainant), when he takes a sample of food for analysis is required to divide the sample into three parts and sent one part for analysis to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the local health authority. The fee/cost of analysis by the public analyst is prescribed under the relevant state rules and is paid by the local authority concerned. The Food Inspector cannot require a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory under section 13(2). He does not require a second analysis to prove the charge. The provision for second analysis is an option given to the accused and not the complainant. A request by the accused for second analysis is not a request by the complainant. The Act does not require the complainant to pay the fees for the second analysis. Therefore, the question of complainant paying the fee for the second analysis does not arise. A request by the accused for second analysis is not a request by the complainant. The Act does not require the complainant to pay the fees for the second analysis. Therefore, the question of complainant paying the fee for the second analysis does not arise. 8.2) The Local (Health) Authority has three obligations with reference to the sample: (i) to keep two parts of the sample received from the Food Inspector; (ii) to inform the person from whom the sample was taken (and his vendor, if any, disclosed under section 14A) that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court to get the sample of the article of food (kept by it) analysed by the Central Food Laboratory; (iii) to send the parts of the sample to the court, if so directed by the court under section 13(2A). The obligation of the Local (Health) Authority is only that of safe keeping of the samples and not to get the samples analysed. Therefore Local (Health) Authority cannot be required to pay the fees for the second analysis of the samples. 8.3) The court cannot obviously be asked to bear the cost of the second analysis or for that matter, any analysis. Its functions are adjudicatory. If the court is required to render some assistance of service free, it should be specifically provided in law. (For example section 363 of Cr.PC provides that when an accused is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the judgment shall be given to him free of cost). 8.4) In the absence of any specific provision, the cost of an analysis has to be borne by the person requesting for such analysis. The accused need not apply to have the sample analysed by Central Food Laboratory, as the report of the public analyst is already on the file. The accused has been given an option under section 13(2) to get a second analysis of the sample (that is analysis of second part of the sample by a Central laboratory) only if he so desires. This option will obviously be exercised, only when the accused is not satisfied with the Report of the Public Analyst and wants to assail it. This option will obviously be exercised, only when the accused is not satisfied with the Report of the Public Analyst and wants to assail it. As the second analysis by Central Food Laboratory is at the option of the accused, it necessarily follows that he should bear and pay the fee fixed for such analysis under the Rules, if he wants the second analysis. 9. We may now consider the decision of the Kerala High Court which takes a different view. The Kerala High Court has held that there is no liability on the part of the accused to pay the fee for the second analysis, by comparing the wording of Section 13(2) with the old Section 13 (2). Section 13(2) before its amendment, by Act 34 of 1976 read as follows: "13(2). After the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application to the court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate; and on receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 11 are intact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of his analysis." (Emphasis supplied) The Kerala High Court was of the view that the specific provision for payment of prescribed fee by the person making the application for analysis, in the old section 13(2) having been omitted in the new Section 13(2), the legislative intent was that the person requiring the second analysis need not pay the fee for such analysis. We extract below the reasoning of the Kerala High Court: "After 1976 amendment the Local (Health) Authority has the obligation, under section 13 (2), to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused and to inform him that he may make an application to the court to get the other sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Before 1976 amendment, either the complainant or the accused could have applied for sending the other part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Neither the food inspector nor the local authority had any obligation, before 1976 amendment, to inform the accused that he could exercise his option under section 13(2) after 1973 amendment would thus show that it is the obligation of the State or local authority to subject the sample to analysis. Such analysis would be made by the Public Analyst first, and if the accused needs, such analysis must be arranged to be made at the Central Food Laboratory. The only difference is that in the analysis to be made by the Public Analyst the accused has no part to play, whereas the Director of Central Food Laboratory cannot be asked to analyse the sample if the accused does not want it. In other words, if the accused expresses his desire to have the sample analysed by a superior expert, law provides that it must be got done. This right or option is not conditional on the accused remitting the expenses needed for analysing the sample. The result of such analysis by the Director of Central Food Laboratory is binding on the prosecution in the same way as it is binding on the accused because the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory will supersede the report of the Public Analyst. Such certificate is not an item of defence evidence, as it takes the place of the report of the Public Analyst. In the absence of any clear statutory insistence an accused cannot be asked to bear the expenses to bring in a document having greater probative value and a substitution for the earlier document of the prosecution. Hence, the deletion of the words "on payment of the prescribed fee" from section 13(2) coupled with the other changes, conveys the message that it is no longer obligatory for the accused to bear the expenses for such analysis." (Emphasis supplied) The Kerala High Court got over Rule 4(6) by stating that the said rule was made when the original Section 13(2) was in force and after Section 13(2) was substituted in 1976, the said sub-rule became obsolete. 10. 10. On a careful reading of section 13(2) as it exists now, and the old section 13(2), we are of the view that the old provision is of no assistance to interpret the new provision. If section 13(2) as it originally stood had been retained, by merely omitting the words "on payment of prescribed fee", with a consequential change in Rule 4 by deleting clause (6) thereof, it might have been possible to take the view that no fee was payable by the applicant for second analysis. But that is not the position. Section 13 (2) has undergone a complete change, by substitution in entirety, by section 13(2)(2A) to 2(E). Further, Rule 4(6) has continued in the statute book. Not only Rule 4(6) has continued, but it has been consciously amended in 1995 and again in 1998 increasing the fee. There is a clear provision in the Act for payment of fee, when section 4(2)(b) is read with Rule 4(6). Rule 4(6) cannot be ignored as obsolete, as has been done by the Kerala High Court, in the absence of clear irreconciliability with section 13(2) or any other provision of the Act. 11. When a statutory provision is substituted, the new provision has to be read and construed with reference to its wording and not with reference to the wording of the old provision. Old section 13(2) and new section 13 (2) to (2F) are different. Old section 13(2) enabled the accused as also the complainant to make an application to the court for sending a second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Under the new section 13(2), a complainant does not have such right, but on the other hand, the right is given only to the person from whom the sample was taken as also his vendor, if any. Secondly, under the new section an obligation is cast on the Local (Health) Authority to inform the person from whom the sample has been taken (and his vendor, if any) that they can make an application to the court, within 10 days of receipt of the Public Analyst's report, for getting a second part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Old section 13(2) did not contain such a provision. Old section 13(2) did not contain such a provision. Lastly, the provision that "the accused or the complainant may on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application" in old section 13(2) meant that payment of the prescribed fee was a condition precedent for making an application to the court for second analysis. The omission of the words 'on payment of the prescribed fee' in the new section 13(2), in context, only means that payment is no longer a condition precedent for making an application for second analysis. Under the new section 13(2), the applicant can make the payment, after the application is allowed by the court. The sample however will be sent by the court to the Central Food Laboratory only on deposit of the prescribed fee.The omission to refer to the fee in section 13 (2) is obviously because it was provided in Rule 4(6) made in exercise of power conferred under section 4(2)(b). If the legislative intent was to exempt the applicant for second analysis from any payment, the section would have stated that such analysis was free. The decision of the Kerala High Court is clearly erroneous. The view of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Madras that the applicant has to pay the fee for the second analysis, in view of Rule 4(6) providing for such fee and the absence of any provision exempting the applicant from paying the fee, is correct." [Emphasis Supplied] 12. Thus, as on the date of filing the complaint in the present case, the position was ambiguous on the issue as to who amongst the accused, the Food Inspector or the Court was responsible to bear the expenses of re-analysis. Thus, the accused was not entirely unjustified in claiming that the prosecution should bear this cost. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present case, at an earlier stage, the prosecution deposited the re-analysis charges and later on, the accused also deposited the same. The fact further remains that despite numerous directions of the trial Court, the second sample, which was locked up in coffers of C.M.H.O., Bhilwara, did not see the light of the day till the year 2012 i.e. nearly seventeen years from the date of sampling. The trial Court without any success issued repeated directions for production of the second sample in the Court. The trial Court without any success issued repeated directions for production of the second sample in the Court. Significantly enough, when the trial court forwarded its explanation to this Court, it was conspicuously silent on the issue as to whether the second sample was ever received in the Court or not. The accused was asked to deposit the expenses of analysis in the year 2004 for the first time i.e. after 8 years of the drawal of the sample which he promptly complied. 13. The effect of delay in analysis of second sample by the Central Food Laboratory on the proceedings of the case was examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Bhai (supra) and by this Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Lakhotia (supra). It was held that undue delay in sending the second food sample to the Central Food Laboratory amounts to defeating the mandatory right available to every accused to get the second food sample analysed through the C.F.L. under Section 13(2) of the Act of 1954 and causes great prejudice. 14. Admittedly, in this case, the accused has been deprived of his statutory right to have the second sample analysed through the Central Food Laboratory because the second sample was not produced from the C.M.H.O. office in the Court despite repeated directions till almost seventeen years from the date of sampling. Sending the second sample of oil for re-analysis now after this great delay of more than a decade and half would be an exercise in futility as, by now it can be assumed that the oil sample must have deteriorated and disintegrated beyond the state of being fit for analysis. Great prejudice has been caused to become irretrievable. 15. As a consequence of the statutory right of the accused, to have the second sample re-analysed through the Central Food Laboratory, being frustrated, the continuance of the proceedings of the case instituted against the accused for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Act of 1954 is not at all justified. The proceedings are thus liable to be quashed. 16. Resultantly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Further proceedings of the complaint no.952/2011 (149/2004) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara amount to a gross abuse of process of court and thus are hereby quashed. 17. The proceedings are thus liable to be quashed. 16. Resultantly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Further proceedings of the complaint no.952/2011 (149/2004) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara amount to a gross abuse of process of court and thus are hereby quashed. 17. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara shall make an enquiry about the non-forwarding of the second food sample to the Court from the office of C.M.H.O., Bhilwara and shall recommend action against the erring officials as per Rule 66 of the General Rules Criminal. 18. Second stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition Allowed. *******