MANGILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore whereby the application under section 13(2) for the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was rejected as the same was submitted beyond ten days and it was considered that the provision is mandatory. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Magistrate seriously erred in holding the provision as mandatory and besides that satisfactory explanation for delay was given. Reliance was placed by him on a D.B. Judgment of the Kerala High Court in Food Inspector, Palghat Municipality. Appellant Vs. Karingavappully Co-op. Milk supply Society Ltd., and others, 1986 CLJ 1719, and SB. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vishnu Swarup Vs. The State, 1986 CLJ 1166. It has been laid down in these decisions that the period provided in section 13 (2) is not an inflexible one and it is further laid down that there is no bar under section 13 for the court to allow the application if submitted beyond ten days. In my opinion, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error in holding that the time prescribed is mandatory and the application if moved after ten days, the same deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 30th July, 1986 is set aside and the petitioner's application under section 13(2) is allowed and the sample be sent for analysis in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Petitioner's application under section 13(2) is to be admitted.