P SATYANARAYANA Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR PENUGONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is true that under Section 13 (2) and 2-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, as amended, it is not specifically laid that the person from whom the sample was obtained should bear the expenses of analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory, when he or she exercises the right given in that behalf. Under Section 13 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment, the right to have the sample further analysed by the Central Food Laboratory was given not only to the vendor of the sample, but also to the Food Inspector who obtained the sample. Under the amended Section, the right given to the Food Inspector was taken away and only the vendor of the sample can exercise the right. The legislature, therefore, thought it necessary to retain the words "on payment of the prescribed fee" in Section 13 of the Act. IT may be noted that in a case where the vendor, from whom the sample was collected, was not satisfied with the correctness or accuracy of the report of the Public Analyst, he exercises the right conferred upon him under Section 13 (2) of the Act to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. When he exercises that right, itis, but just that he should bear the expenses of the analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. The order passed by the Lower Court does not, therefore, call for any interference.

(2.) THE Criminal revision, case, therefore, fails and is dismissed. P.N.R. Cr RC. Dissmissed