MOHAMED SAIT Vs. LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITY MELUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the learned judicial Magistrate, Melur, in C. M. P. No. 200 of 1992, directing the accused to remit a sum of Rs. 40 for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The respondent herein namely Local Health Authority, Melur Municipality prosecuted the revision petitioner herein for certain offences under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As the analyst has sent the report to the effect that the material seized from the petitioner is adulterated, the petitioner has filed the petition under Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act to send the sample lying with the local authority, to the central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner accused to remit a sum of Rs. 40 towards the fees payable to the Central Food Laboratory for analysing the sample. The contention of the petitioner that he was not liable to pay the charges, but only the State on his behalf has been rejected by the learned Magistrate. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. Bhavanantham, appearing for the revision petitioner contends that though under Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, before its amendment prior to 1976, the party, either the accused or complainant, had the right to apply for sending the part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory on payment of prescribed fees, the Act was amended giving right only to the accused to send the part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, without any burden to pay the fees, that would be charged by the Central Food Laboratory and therefore, the accused is not bound to pay the charges. In support of this argument, the learned counsel relies upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in George Kutty v. State of Kerala, 1991 M. L. J. (Crl.) 210. THE learned Judge, in that decision, has referred to sec. 13 (2) of the Act before amendment in 1976 and after the amendment and the learned Judge has taken the view that before the amendment, there was a specific direction to pay the fees of the Central Food Laboratory either by the accused or the complainant, whoever wanted the sample to be sent to the Central Food laboratory but after the amendment, the complainant has no right to ask for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and the accused alone is entitled to exercise this right under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act for which there is no specific direction for payment of the fees by the accused and therefore, the state alone should bear this expense. THE learned Judge has referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Pyari v. THE Nagar Swasthya adikari, 1987 F. A. J. 404, to support his view. However, the learned Judge has conceded that under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration rules, there is a specific provision that all the expenses in connection With the despatch of food samples for analysis and in the prosecution of the persons in the Act, shall be made by the local authority and where ho such local authority exists, by the State Government. It is mentioned by the learned Judge that in view of Rule 12 of the U. P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, a duty is cast upon the local authority and in its absence, the State Government to meet all the expenses in connection with the food sample analysis. If Sec. 13 (2) is clear imposing the duty, upon the local authority or the State government to meet these expenses there is no necessity for specific rules as indicated by the Uttar Pradesh Government, to meet the expenses by the State and the local authorities. THErefore, the above decision Ram Pyari v. THE Nagar swasthya Adikari, cannot be followed in the absence of a specific rule to meet the expenses.