RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners contended that second report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory will supersede the first one. He relied on Chetumal v. State of M.P. and another,1981 2 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 280 Paras Dass v. State of Haryana,1982 2 CrLR 700 Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan K. Saraf,1999 1 FAC 8 (SC) and a judgment of this Court in Crl. Misc. No.882-M of 1994, Prabltjot Singh and others v. State of Punjab, decided on 5.10.1995.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners referred to Section 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act,) and submitted that the certificate issued by the Director for the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst under Sub-Section 1 of Section 13 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State could not point out any contrary interpretation to the said Section.