JUDGMENT : M.T. Joshi, J. (Oral) – Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners are seeking quashment of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector under Sections 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia)(m), 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The complaint would reveal that the samples of raw milk were collected from the collection centre and not from the selling points. Thus, the raw milk was yet to be processed. It was collected from various milk producers. It would further show that though the sample was collected on 31.3.2011, the complaint was filed on 5.1.2012. Thereafter, the Food Inspector issued notice to the present petitioners on 13.1.2012. Upon receipt of the notice, petitioner no.1 applied for re-analysis on 18.1.2012 by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,000/- by demand draft in the court. The second sample, therefore, was sent for re-analysis on 14.12.2012 as the second sample was deposited by the Food Inspector after delay of 11 months. In the result, the report of the Central Food Laboratory, dated 15.1.2012 revealed that the sample was unfit to carry out the analysis. 3. In the set of facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following authorities. 1. Shiv Kumar v. State of Maharashtra 2010 (2) FAC 239 2. State of Maharashtra v. Shiv Kumar SLP (Cri.) 6332/2010, Order, dated 13.9.2010 3. Girishbhai Dayabhai Shah v. C.C.Jani & anr. 2009 (15) SCC 64 4. Girishbhai Dayabhai Shah v. C.C.Jani & anr. 2008 (2) FAC 344 4. Ravindra Chopade v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2013 (2) FAC 227 5. M/s Marico Limited v. State and another 2012 (2) FAC 504 6. ITC Limited v. State of M.P. 2012 (2) FAC 504 7. Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 659 8. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram (1967) 2 SCR 116 9. M/s Cargil India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana CRM-M-28799 of 2012, DOD-08.08.2013 10. Ahmed Dadabhai Advani v. State of Mah. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 652 11. M/s Gurulakshmi Food Products, Guntur v. State of A.P. Cri.Petition No. 1070/2007, decided on Feb.2, 2010 12. Sri Shravan Kumar Agarwal v. State of A.P. 2009 (2) FAC 366 13. M. Durga Rao and Anr v. State of A.P. Cri. Rev. Ahmed Dadabhai Advani v. State of Mah. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 652 11. M/s Gurulakshmi Food Products, Guntur v. State of A.P. Cri.Petition No. 1070/2007, decided on Feb.2, 2010 12. Sri Shravan Kumar Agarwal v. State of A.P. 2009 (2) FAC 366 13. M. Durga Rao and Anr v. State of A.P. Cri. Rev. Case No. 412/2006, dated 11.3.2011 14. D. Rama Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Cri. M.C.No. 3000/2005, dated 21.2.2012 4. It is to be noted that the sample was collected not from any selling point but at the collection centre where the milk producers deposited their milk. Further the valuable right of the petitioners for getting the second sample analysed is lost. Upon perusal of the ratio of the authorities, in my view, the complaint deserves to be quashed. 5. In the circumstances, following order. (i) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', which runs as under : - "(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the present complaint bearing R.C.C. No. 19/2012 under Section 7(i) r/w 2(ia)(a) and 2(ia)(m) and under Section 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court 11, Hingoli and the consequent proceedings in the present case against the petitioners and other officials of the petitioner company. " (ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.