ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 920 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bhilwara, including the complaint itself. 2. Bare necessary facts, for the purpose of this petition, are that on 6th of April, 2011, a criminal complaint was laid against petitioner by Food Inspector working in the office of Chief Medical Health Officer, Bhilwara before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial Court') alleging offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, Act) and Rule 50(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, Rules). The complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 920/2011. In substance, the complaint attributed adulteration in Malia Barfi, samples of which were taken from M/s. Delhi Sweets, Bhilwara, the manufacturer of said Barfi on 03.11.2010 and the petitioner being its proprietor was arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint. The samples were sent for analysis to Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer on 04.11.2010 and as per report of the Public Analyst dated 10.12.2010, the samples were found adulterated. 3. The learned trial Court, on receipt of the complaint and the documents accompanying the same, took cognizance on 18th of April 2011 and issued process to the petitioner for offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act on 18th of April 2011. 4. It is pleaded in the petition that the learned trial Court has not examined the matter in right perspective and has passed the order of cognizance mechanically. That apart, the petitioner has also submitted that delayed examination of sample by the Public Analyst was of no avail inasmuch as the samples of Malai Barfi collected by the Food Inspector had a very short life. Petitioner has also submitted that at the time of examination the sample had already deteriorated and lost its life. That apart, the petitioner has also submitted that delayed examination of sample by the Public Analyst was of no avail inasmuch as the samples of Malai Barfi collected by the Food Inspector had a very short life. Petitioner has also submitted that at the time of examination the sample had already deteriorated and lost its life. It is also pleaded that the legislature in its wisdom has conferred a valuable right under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act in favour of the person, from whom the samples of food article were taken, to get the sample of the food article kept by Local (Health) Authority analyzed by Central Food Laboratory and the petitioner immediately after cognizance moved an application on 30.04.2011 to send the samples to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis but the same were sent on 24th of November, 2015 after a gap of five years from the date of taking samples and were submitted in broken condition as such the Central Food Laboratory on 9th of December, 2015 refused to analyze the same. In substance, the petitioner has submitted that his valuable right to get the sample of food article kept by local authority analyzed by Central Food Laboratory is frustrated. With this assertion, the petitioner has submitted that the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as other materials available on record. 6. A very short point that has emerged for consideration in the present case is hovering around sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. The crucial question is about entitlement of accused for getting second sample examined under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is not in dispute that the samples were collected on 3rd of November, 2010 and its life span was very short, say for few days, and therefore, sending the sample of Malai Barfi on 4th of November 2010 for analysis to the Public Health Laboratory, Ajmer was of no use as by that time the article had already lost its life. The Public Analyst gave report on 10th of December 2010 reporting adulteration therein and after obtaining report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed on 6th of April 2011, whereupon criminal case was registered and cognizance was taken against petitioner on 18.04.2011 by the learned trial Court. The Public Analyst gave report on 10th of December 2010 reporting adulteration therein and after obtaining report of Public Analyst, the complaint was filed on 6th of April 2011, whereupon criminal case was registered and cognizance was taken against petitioner on 18.04.2011 by the learned trial Court. Undeniably, the complaint was filed after almost four months from the date of procuring the report of Public Analyst and on the basis of admitted facts, obviously, the petitioner is deprived of his right to get the sample analyzed by Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. This sort of situation has prejudiced the cause of the petitioner having direct ramification on the legality and propriety of the complaint and proceedings undertaken by the learned trial Court pursuant thereto. 7. Supreme Court, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 , while examining scope of sub-section (2) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act, concluded in clear and unequivocal term that right of accused to get sample examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory is a valuable right and if this right is infringed, his conviction cannot be sustained. The Court held: "It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the-certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive-evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his, satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein. 8. 8. The same principle is also reiterated in a latter judgment in case of Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani Anr. [ (2009) 15 SCC 64 ] wherein the Court held: "In other words, in the instant case, the appellant was prevented from applying for analysis of the second sample before 17-7-1989, by which time the second sample of curd had deteriorated and was not capable of being analysed as was found in the case of Ghisa Ram (supra) referred to above. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal and we also see no reason to continue with the proceedings which have lasted for 28 years in the absence of any valid and reliable report with regard to the second sample. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding, being Criminal Complaint No. 58 of 1989, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, is quashed." 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur, in Nemi Chand Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan [2012(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 830], noticing violation of Section 13(2) of the Act has also quashed the complaint under Section 7/16 of the Act. The Court held: "A bare perusal of above goes to show that after receipt of the report of Public Analyst under Section 13(1), the prosecution could be launched and copy of the report should be supplied to the accused. Sub-Section (2) provided that on receipt of the report, the accused could make an application to the Court to get the sample of articles to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the present case, samples have already been expired in July, 2010, whereas the complaint has been filed in November, 2010 and the right which was provided by Section 13(2) of the P.F.A. Act has been taken away by the present petitioner. Hence looking at the above legal position, continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process and hence liable to be quashed. 10. In view of foregoing discussion and the law laid down in Ghisa Ram (supra), the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed and entire proceedings against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 920 of 2011 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Bhilwara, are hereby quashed and set aside.