ORDER : P. Kalaiyarasan, J. 1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in S.T.C. No. 1061 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and to quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the respondent took the sample of scented tobacco on 28.02.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. After observing all formalities, he sent one of the part to Public Analyst for analysis. The Analyst sent a report on 09.10.2009, stating that the sample contains Nicotine and hence, the sample is adulterant, which is prohibited under Section 7(vi) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and is violation of Rule 44(J) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Section 13(2) notice dated 16.04.2010 was served to the petitioner. Form III discloses that sample has to be used best before two months from the month of packing and the month of packing is mentioned August 2009. 13(2) notice was not served on the petitioner within two months from the date of sample. Therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1061 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli is liable to be quashed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the valuable right mandated under Section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been denied to the petitioner and on that ground alone, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side), per contra, contends that the petitioner delayed in giving details about the manufacturing company and 13(2) notice was given within the reasonable time. It is further contended that best before as per Form III does not mean the life of the article has been expired. 5. In this case, sample was taken on 28.08.2009. The Food Inspector sent one of the part of the sample to the Analyst and the analyst report is dated 09.10.2009. 13(2) notice issued to the petitioner is dated 16.04.2010. Thus 13(2) notice was served after about 7 months from the date of packing the sample. Though sample was taken on 28.08.2009, the Food Inspector sought information about the manufacturing company only on 13.10.2009. The details asked for by the Food Inspector was given by the petitioner on 17.11.2009. 13(2) notice issued to the petitioner is dated 16.04.2010. Thus 13(2) notice was served after about 7 months from the date of packing the sample. Though sample was taken on 28.08.2009, the Food Inspector sought information about the manufacturing company only on 13.10.2009. The details asked for by the Food Inspector was given by the petitioner on 17.11.2009. Thus, for giving information, there is a delay of about one month on the part of the accused. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Food Inspector sought the particulars only after about 7 months from the date of packing of the sample. Even if the delay of about one month is fastened on the accused, there is a delay of 6 months in serving 13(2) notice. As per Form III, the commodity has to be used best before two months and the packing is noted as August 2009. Therefore, the commodity can be used till October 2009. 7. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) contended that the phrase "best before" does not mean that the commodity has become expired, by citing the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Gangaiahnaidu Ramakrishnan and Others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, CDJ 2006 APHC 047. Since 13(2) notice was served after 7 months from the date of packing of the sample, no doubt the commodity become inconsumable and useless. Therefore, the contention that even after 7 months, the sample can be subjected to second analysis cannot be accepted. 8. Since 13(2) notice was served after 7 months from the date of packing of the sample, no doubt the commodity become inconsumable and useless. Therefore, the contention that even after 7 months, the sample can be subjected to second analysis cannot be accepted. 8. It is useful to extract Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which reads as under: "13(2): On receipt of the report of the result of 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 14-A, 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." 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also cited the ruling of this Court in Suresh C. vs. State, Rep. by Food Inspector, 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 460 and contended that valuable right conferred under Section 13(2) of the Act has been denied to the petitioners and therefore, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. In the above judgment, this Court has held as follows: "7........It would be abundantly clear that the sample of toned milk was taken on 22.07.2003, the Food Inspector presented the complaint on 31.03.2004, and after it was taken on file on 13.05.2004, notice under Section 13(2) was issued to the petitioners on 18.05.2004. Thus, it would be quite evident that a notice along with the report of the analyst was sent on 18.05.2004, after an interval of nearly 10 months. By that time, the milk sample would have become decomposed. Thus, the right of the accused available under Section 13(2) has been frustrated, due to the inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the prosecution." 10. By that time, the milk sample would have become decomposed. Thus, the right of the accused available under Section 13(2) has been frustrated, due to the inordinate delay and inaction on the part of the prosecution." 10. In this case on hand, it is clear that the valuable right of second analysis by Central Food Laboratory has been denied to the petitioners. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner in S.T.C. No. 1061 of 2010 is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the proceeding in S.T.C. No. 1061 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli is hereby quashed against the petitioner. This criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.