RANBIR SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings relating to the prosecution of the applicant under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 87 of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

(2.) A sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector and sealed in three bottles. One of these bottles was sent to the Public Analyst in ordinary course When the report of the analysis was received the applicant was prosecuted. He asked for the sample in the possession of the Cantonment Board, Meerut, being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, under Subs. (2) of Section 13 of the Act. The report of the Director not being favourable to the applicant, he made a fresh application for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director but his request was rejected by the Magistrate and his revision to the Sessions Judge also having been dismissed, he has come to this Court against the aforesaid order. The question involved for decision, there, fore is whether a second request can be made by an accused person under Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Act to have the sample of the alleged adulterated food being examined again by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. So far as the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of. the Act are concerned, the accused person has the option to apply for the sample mentioned in Sub -clause (i) or the sample mentioned in Sub -clause (iii) of cl. (c) of Sub -section (1) of Section 11 being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Sub -.clause (1) aforesaid relates to the sample which is delivered to the person from whom the article is taken and it is the third part of the sample which is retained in the office of the Municipal or Cantonment Board. Sub -section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, therefore, entitles an accused person only to get either of the two samples analysed and examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. When his report is received, the proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 13 makes that report final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Although there is no clear prohibition in the act that the accused person cannot ask for the third sample in his possession also being sent to the Director for examination by him, the intention behind the provisions of Section 13 is obvious. In the first place there is no specific provision that even after the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is received, a third attempt may be made to have the third sample also examined.

(3.) THE application in revision has no force and is consequently dismissed. The stay order is vacated.