ORDER : 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings be dropped against the petitioner as second sample sent to Central Food Laboratory has been found unfit as shelf life thereof had expired. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that samples of cow milk, after necessary formalities, were drawn on 22.5.1996. Learned counsel contends that the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector. Learned counsel contends that since second sample has not been found fit, a valuable right of the petitioner stands defeated and therefore, the proceedings be dropped. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of above said argument, has relied upon Vishram Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 66, Onkarlal v. State of Rajasthan, 2003(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1393, Chandra Shekhar Lakhotia & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2012(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 487, to contend that the very fact that second sample was found unfit is sufficient to hold that continuation of proceedings will serve no useful purpose. 4. I am not impressed by the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, the judgments relied by the learned counsel are not attracted on the facts of the present case. 5. Legislature in the scheme of things, has noted in Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’) that after report of Public Analyst is received by the Food Inspector, in pursuance thereof, if necessary complaint shall be filed by the Food Inspector. Thereafter, he shall send a notice to the accused on the address noted in the memo taking sample calling him that, if the accused so desire, he can seek analysis of second sample. There is no need to say that the report of Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report of Public Analyst. In the present case, no averment has been made in the present petition that the Food Inspector had not sent any notice or the petitioner had not received any notice. Therefore, if an application has been filed after inordinate delay seeking analysis of second sample when shelf life of second sample had already expired, no benefit shall accrue to the accused. Accused has to be diligent in seeking testing of second sample after receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by the Health Authority. Therefore, if an application has been filed after inordinate delay seeking analysis of second sample when shelf life of second sample had already expired, no benefit shall accrue to the accused. Accused has to be diligent in seeking testing of second sample after receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act by the Health Authority. For ready reference, Section 13(2) of the Act is reproduced below:- “13. Report of Public analyst.— (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (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 person 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 (Emphasis Supplied) to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.” 6. Food items are perishable. To enhance the life of food items, preservative is added. Milk very soon become unfit for human consumption and analysis by the public analyst, therefore, time is essence so far analysis of food item by the public analyst or Central Food Laboratory is concerned. It may be noted that to preserve the milk, drops of formalin are added. Legislature was aware that in the matters of testing of food items time is crucial and therefore, time limit for each function to be performed by the Food Inspector, Public Analyst, Local Health Bodies and the Courts respectively has been prescribed. 7. It may be noted that to preserve the milk, drops of formalin are added. Legislature was aware that in the matters of testing of food items time is crucial and therefore, time limit for each function to be performed by the Food Inspector, Public Analyst, Local Health Bodies and the Courts respectively has been prescribed. 7. Section 11 (1)(c) of the ‘Act’ specifically states that Food Inspector shall send one of the parts of the analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority and he shall send the remaining two parts to Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 and Sub-section (2A) and (2E) of Section 13. Section 11 (3) of the ‘Act’ specifically states that when sample of any article of food is taken under Subsection (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 10, the Food Inspector shall, immediately on the succeeding working day shall send sample of the article of food in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the Public Analyst for the local area concerned. Section 11 (4) states that when any article of food is seized under Sub-section (4) of Section 10, unless destroyed under Sub-section (4A) it shall be produced before the Magistrate as soon as possible and in any case not later than seven days from the receipt of report of Public Analyst. 8. Section 13(2) makes imperative for the Local (Health) Authority to send report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was seized by a registered post or through hand within a period of ten days. 9. Thus, it is apparent that after the sample is seized by the Food Inspector, immediately on the succeeding day, he has to send sample to the Public Anaylist. Public Analyst within seven days has to submit report regarding result of analysis carried. After receipt of report within ten days Local (Health) Authority has to inform the person by way of registered post or by hand regarding result of the analysis along with the report sent, under Section 13(2) Food Inspector has to inform person from whom the sample was taken to get second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory within a period of ten days. Section 13 (2)(A) prescribe that when the application is made under Sub-section (2) to the court, Local (Health) Authority has to produce sample within a period of five days. Thus, the provisions of the Act and Rules give a time frame for getting second sample tested before its shelf life is expired. Therefore, legislature, considering that food items are perishable, has specified time frame. Delay in seeking testing of second sample on the part of accused cannot be extended any premium. 10. The law is very clear that if the second sample is fit for analysis, the report of Central Food Laboratory will supersede the report of Public Analyst. The law is also very explicit clear that even if the accused has made an application after the delay and expiry of the period prescribed if the sample is fit for analysis and the report is in favour of accused, the same will be relied in favour of the accused. However, if due to delay on the part of the accused, even if the second sample is sent by the court for analysis and the sample is found unfit, because its shelf life has expired, no benefit shall accrue to the accused. It will be pertinent to note that if there is delay on the part of prosecution to inform the accused to get the second sample tested and because of delay of prosecution shelf life of sample has expired, then the accused shall be entitled to benefit. 11. It is to be noted that often accused cause delay to seek testing of second sample as they wait for indefinite period for shelf life of second sample to expire. To cover-up such an eventuality, the legislature in the rules has prescribed a time frame as to within how much time sample is to be sent to the Public Analyst and as to within which time complaint has to be filed and as to when after receipt of notice under Section 13(2) from the Health Authority, the accused has to apply for testing of second sample. In the present case, accused remained blissfully silent for long to exercise valuable right vested in him under Section 13(2) of the Act and since because of delay on the part of the accused-petitioner, shelf life of second sample had expired, the judgments cited being distinguishable cannot be relied in favour of the petitioner. 12. In the present case, accused remained blissfully silent for long to exercise valuable right vested in him under Section 13(2) of the Act and since because of delay on the part of the accused-petitioner, shelf life of second sample had expired, the judgments cited being distinguishable cannot be relied in favour of the petitioner. 12. Hence, present petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.