JUDGMENT : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 30/04/2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No.4747 of 2010 recording the acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 7 (1) and 7 (5) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is sought to be assailed in the accompanying appeal, after securing the leave of this Court as required under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Cr.PC). 2. Having considered the rival contentions, concededly the food in question was packed drinking water which bore 29/05/2010 as the date of manufacture with the expiry date being three months of the said date. The report from the Local Health Authority was obtained on 07/07/2010 and the case was lodged on 23/12/2010 i.e. beyond the date of expiry of the product. Section 11 obligates collection of sample and its division into three parts for three different purposes; one of being the dispatch of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for its analysis at the instance of the accused. This purpose could have only been achieved, if the case was lodged during the subsistence of the life of the product allowing sufficient time for the product to be reanalyzed under Section 13(2), before expiry of its life. In the instant case, such period expired on 28/08/2010. Post the said date, the product was not good for consumption and it was prone to natural hazards. Therefore, in all probabilities such a sample would fail the scientific test. Thus, lodgment of the case beyond the date of expiry of the product had caused prejudice to the right of the accused as is made available to him under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act. The case was thus bad on the very inception. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is at pains to express the displeasure qua the manner in which the case has been dealt with by the Food Inspector and other authorities contemplated under the PFA Act. The sample was taken on 01/06/2010 which prescribed the date of manufacture as 29/05/2010 and the life for consumption of the product was a period of three months thereof i.e. 28/08/2010. The said sample was promptly sent to the Local Health Authority, which received it on 07/06/2010 for analysis. The sample was taken on 01/06/2010 which prescribed the date of manufacture as 29/05/2010 and the life for consumption of the product was a period of three months thereof i.e. 28/08/2010. The said sample was promptly sent to the Local Health Authority, which received it on 07/06/2010 for analysis. Unfortunately, without being conscious to the date of expiry of the product, the Local Health Authority consumed about a month before submitting its report on 07/07/2010. If prompt action was taken even on 07/07/2010, the rest of the procedure could have been completed on priority, but that was not done even as the Food Inspector consumed one more month before deciding to secure the information of the firm involved in the case under Section 14A of the PFA Act. He received such information on 17/09/2010 and by that date, the product had already expired. That date itself ensured the impossibility of compliance with Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act; inasmuch as, as discussed above, even according to the manufacturer, it was not good for consumption and thus it was prone to natural hazards and risks and would not in all possibility pass the prescribed test under the Act. However, the Food Inspector again consumed about a month for the purpose of moving the competent authority for sanction which was granted only after about one and a half month by the sanctioning authority. 22 days more were consumed by the Food Inspector before the complaint came to be lodged on 23/12/2010. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the application for leave deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged. Consequently, the appeal must fail and is dismissed. 5. The afore-stated facts represent the startling events and the will to deal with the case with sensitivity and efficiently was lacking at all stages. None of the authorities in line, dealing with the subject were conscious of Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act. The casual manner of dealing with the case consumed the public time, money and energy; of course without any fruitful result. In order to ensure that cases, which may otherwise be proved to be good for conviction, as above do not meet with the fact as above only on account of casual approach by those concerned with PFA Act, this Court therefore deems it appropriate to issue following guidelines to be observed by all concerned under the PFA Act. In order to ensure that cases, which may otherwise be proved to be good for conviction, as above do not meet with the fact as above only on account of casual approach by those concerned with PFA Act, this Court therefore deems it appropriate to issue following guidelines to be observed by all concerned under the PFA Act. 1. Immediately on collection of the sample, the Food Inspector, as also other authorities dealing with the subject, should note and bear in mind the remaining life of the product and thereupon the priority of the matters on their hands must be decided. 2. If the life of the product is too short, say one, two or three months, the authorities under the PFA Act, must take the prompt action in following the required procedure including the dispatch of the sample, collection of all necessary information. 3. The Food Inspector must draw the attention of the Public Analyst to the life left in the product. The Public Analyst would also take note of that fact and while keeping in mind Section 13(2) of the PFA Act and while ensuring that sufficient life is left for accused to exercise the right under that provision, will determine the priority of the case for analysis submitted to it and if the circumstances so demand would promptly furnish the report and the information as required under Section 13(2) to all concerned. 4. The Food Inspector need not wait for the report of the Public Analyst before completing rest of the procedure i.e. Section 14A requiring the disclosure of the name, address and other particulars of the persons from whom the vendor purchased the article of food. In other words, he must ensure the compliance of other procedure like the one under Section 14A of the PFA Act, even in absence of report, to save the time. It is however made clear that, if the sample is lost or damaged, it will be open for the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst to invoke Section 11 (2) of the Act and at that stage also the Public Analyst and Food Inspector will ensure the prompt action as detailed herein above. 5. It is however made clear that, if the sample is lost or damaged, it will be open for the Food Inspector or the Public Analyst to invoke Section 11 (2) of the Act and at that stage also the Public Analyst and Food Inspector will ensure the prompt action as detailed herein above. 5. On receipt of the report establishing offence, the Food Inspector shall promptly, preferably on the same date move the sanctioning authority for the purpose with a note justifying the necessity of prompt action for compliance with Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. 6. The sanctioning authority will take such cases on priority and without wasting any unnecessary time, would consider grant or refusal of sanction in accordance with law and if the sanction is intended, it shall promptly accord it, after applying its mind in accordance with law. 7. On receipt of the sanction, the Food Inspector will again take note of the life left in the product and will ensure the filing of the case immediately and also will ensure the service of necessary notices pre or post filing of the case as may be required by law, to all concerned. 8. The person accused, once served with the process of the Court will also take the note of the remaining life of the product and will decide as to whether he should invoke Section 13(2) of the PFA Act. If decides to invoke the said provision, he may do so immediately on service of the process of appearance on him/it. 9. The Court concerned will also take note of the remaining life of the product and will further ensure immediate obtaining of the sample from the Public Analyst for dispatching it to the Central Food Laboratory on the application of the accused, as required by Section 13 of the PFA Act. 10. For the above purpose, the Public Analyst will again ensure the dispatch of the sample when required by the Court under PFA Act, promptly without consuming any unnecessary time. 11. The Central Food Laboratory concerned, will also, on receipt of the sample by it, take note of the remaining life of the product and will analyze it before the expiry date of the product and submit the report to the Court concerned, immediately. 12. 11. The Central Food Laboratory concerned, will also, on receipt of the sample by it, take note of the remaining life of the product and will analyze it before the expiry date of the product and submit the report to the Court concerned, immediately. 12. If the controlling authority or disciplinary authority or appointing authority or any other authority competent to take disciplinary action, forms an opinion after taking into consideration the relevant facts of a particular case that the time was unnecessarily consumed by the concerned officials/persons dealing with the matter and thereby unjust benefit has been received by the persons accused, will ensure the explanation from the erring person and if necessary, initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the erring person. 6. The aforesaid guidelines shall be observed by the all authorities and the persons dealing with the matters under the PFA Act including the Court concerned. 7. Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this judgment to all the authorities and the persons dealing with the matters under the PFA Act including the Court concerned.