(1.) The present Revision Application is preferred by the petitioner -orig. accused no.1 of Criminal Case No.1059/95, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Pardi, facing criminal trial of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 16 r/w. 2(ia)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act').
(2.) The order under challenge dated 29th June, 2001, is of rejection of application praying for discharge by the present petitioner and by the said order further directed to send the third sample for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'CFL'). It is contended that the third sample, consequent to the order under challenge sent to the CFL on 4th July, 2001, has been declared adulterated within the meaning of provisions of the PFA Act. At this stage it is relevant to note that immediately after the order under challenge passed on 29th June, 2001, the petitioner -accused had prayed for suspension of the order sending the third sample for reanalysis vide application Exh.14 but the same was rejected.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the procedure of sending the third sample for reanalysis is completely contrary to the provisions of the statute as the CFL has no mandate or authority to seek the third sample except the circumstances as detailed under Section 13(2)(C) of proviso. The proviso says that when the sample sent by the Court to the CFL is either lost or damaged, the third sample can be sent or called for for reanalysis. In the present case, it is not a matter of dispute that the sample was lost or damaged, on the contrary, it is on record that it was duly received by the CFL and it was also analyzed by the expert but the CFL could not send the report of analysis. In other words, the say of the petitioner is that the report of analysis was not issued in a reasonable period from the date of analysis for inconveniencing and irrational reasons.