JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.87/2011 initially filed before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad and subsequently transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.2665/2015 now pending on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad. 2. The respondent Food Inspector, Hubballi- Dharwad Municipal Corporation had filed a complaint before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, alleging that; 2.1 The petitioner had committed offences punishable under Section 7(1) read with Section 16 (i)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ( the Act for short), on the ground that, when the complainant had visited the shop of the petitioner on 10.11.2010 and inspected the food products kept in the shop on suspicion that the butter, namely Amul pasteurized butter had been adulterated, had informed the same to the petitioner and purchased the said offending item from the petitioner by making payment thereof. 2.2 He had sent a sample of the said butter to the Public Analyst at Bengaluru through courier for analysis and after dividing the butter into three equal parts, the remaining two parts were retained by the respondent. 2.3 The Public Analyst had provided a report on 15.12.2010 that the sample received by him was adulterated. 2.4 It is on this basis that the complaint came to be filed before the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad for the aforesaid offences. 2.5 Subsequent thereto, on the appearance of the petitioner, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for a direction by the Court to the respondent to forward a second sample for analysis by the Public Analyst in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: Section 13(2) Report of public analyst. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx (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 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 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 to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 2.6 Though the said application has been filed on 27.04.2011, till date the second sample has not been made available or forwarded to the Public Analyst by the respondent. 2.7 It is in view thereof that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings contending that the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed in the matter for the last 9 years and the criminal prosecution is going on without the respondent forwarding the second sample. 3. On issuance of notice, Sri. Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel has entered appearance for the respondent and on enquiry as regards the existence or otherwise of the second sample, he submits that the second sample is not available with the respondent. He further submits that the adulterated product in the present matter is Amul pasteurized butter, which is a perishable product and at present not available. 4. Hearding Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 5. He further submits that the adulterated product in the present matter is Amul pasteurized butter, which is a perishable product and at present not available. 4. Hearding Sri. Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gurudev I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 5. On hearing the rival submissions on the part of both the parties, the right under Section 13(2) of the Act is very important right vested with the petitioner who is alleged to have adulterated a food article, had a second sample sent for analysis to a public analyst, it is the result of this second sample which would be necessary for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner is to be prosecuted or not. 6. When the petitioner has exercised his right under Section 13(2) of the Act and the second sample is not available, the report of the public analyst insofar as the first sample is concerned cannot be taken into consideration by this Court to prosecute the petitioner. 7. The fact that the application had been filed in the year 2011 and till now the second sample has not been sent and now it is submitted that the second sample is not available, leads this Court to the conclusion that the entire proceedings needs to be quashed since the pendency of the same would not serve any purpose. 8. While quashing the proceedings, it would but be required for this Court to observe that, in these cases if a person alleged to have adulterated a particular food article or product and the second sample is not available and the prosecution is still pending, the authorities concerned need to take necessary steps to withdraw those proceedings so as not to continuously harass the accused in those cases. 9. It would also be required to observe that the food adulteration being a serious offence the samples are to be preserved by the Food Inspector in a proper and required manner as per the protocol prescribed under the erstwhile provision of the Protection of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and now under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 10. Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath is requested to instruct the concerned at the Municipal Corporation to strictly follow the requirements of the Act insofar as any offences relating to Food Adulteration or Food Safety are concerned. 11. 10. Sri. Gurudev Gachchinamath is requested to instruct the concerned at the Municipal Corporation to strictly follow the requirements of the Act insofar as any offences relating to Food Adulteration or Food Safety are concerned. 11. In view of the above, petition is allowed. all proceeding in C.C.No.2665/2015 pending on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are quashed. In view of the disposal of the above petition, I.A.1/2020 does not require any interference.