M C CHARLEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused for an offence punishable under section 7 (i) and 16 (1) (a) (i) r/w. Section 2 (ia)and (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration acf and the proceedings are pending in nmmf No. 3 of 2002 on the file of the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras. The food in question is milk. Sample of milk has been taken from the petitioner and it was reported to be adulterated.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, the petitioner has inherent right to send the second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst. But, in the instant case, on 7. 1. 2000, the milk was taken for sample and on 27. 1. 2000 the report of the Public Analyst has been received. Under Section 13 (2), notice should have been issued within a period of ten days for enabling the petitioner to send the second sample for analysis. In the meantime, the complaint was lodged on 3. 4. 2002 and notice was given on 16. 5. 2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a report has been received from the Central Food Laboratory to the effect that the sample is unfit for analysis. Under such circumstances, the valid right of the petitioner is defeated. The learned counsel relied on a case reported in Suresh v. The state which reads as follows:

(3.) I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The provisions enacted in the Special enactment fixing certain time limits may have to be followed scrupulously. The cases, which are relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, are applicable to the facts on hand and circumstances of the present case.