R.S. Chauhan, J.
1. The petitioner Company has challenged the orders dated 8.3.2002, 26.7.2003 and 26.11.2005. By the first order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur had directed that the second sample of Ghee, (the alleged adulterated food item) should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory, provided that the petitioner Company would deposit Rs. 1,000/- for such examination. By the second order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner Company for modifying the order dated 8.3.2002. The petitioner Company had requested that the condition of depositing of Rs. 1,000/- should be deleted and the sample should be sent for further examination by the Central Food Laboratory. However, such a prayer was declined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. By the third order, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner Company.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.5.2005 the Food Inspector had taken sample of Ghee from the shop of the authorized seller and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst, Jaipur. According to the report dated 22.6.2001, the Ghee was adulterated. On 3.10.2001 the Food Inspector informed the petitioner about the report of the Public Analyst. Immediately, on 12.11.2001 the petitioner moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act') wherein he prayed that the second sample of the Ghee should be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for an independent examination. Vide order dated 8.3.2002 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to direct that the sample should be sent to the said Laboratory, but only if the petitioner Company would deposit Rs. 1,000/- as the expenses for getting the test done. The petitioner claimed that they did not have any information about the order dated 8.3.2002 as it was passed ex- parte. But when it came to its knowledge, they immediately filed an application on 26.6.2003 for amending the said order. However, vide order dated 26.7.2003 the said application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur. However, vide order dated 27.11.2005 the Revisional Court was pleased to dismissed the said petition. Hence, this petition before us.
3. The Act lays down an elaborate procedure after the report of the Public Analyst is delivered. Section 13 of the Act which deals with the procedure is as under:-
13. Report of public analyst-(1) The pubic analyst shall deliver in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitting to him for analysis.
(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of the food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the, analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
(2-A) When an application is made to the Court under Sub-section (2), the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or part of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of ttoe sample to the Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition.
(2-B) On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under Sub-section (2-A), the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with, and dispatch the part or, as the case may be one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis.
(2-C) Where two parts of the sample have been sent to the Court and only one part of the sample has been sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Sub-section (2-B), the Court shall, as soon as practicable, return the remaining part to the Local (Health) Authority and that Authority shall destroy that part after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has received by the Court:
Provided that where the part of the sample sent by the Court to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is lost or damaged, the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part of the sample, if any retain by it to the Court and on receipt thereof, the Court shall proceed in the manner provided in Sub-section (2-B). (2-D) Until the receipt of the Certificate of the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the Court shall not continue with the proceedings pending before it in relation to the prosecution.
(2-E) If, after considering the report, if any, of the food inspector or otherwise the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under Sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept by it to any other pubic analyst for analysis and if the report of the result of the analysis of that part of sample by that other public analyst is to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the provisions of Sub-sections (2) (2-D) shall, as far as may be, apply.]
(3) The certificate issued by the Director of the Central food Laboratory [under Sub-section (2-b)] shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under Sub-section (1).
(4) Where a certificate obtained from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [under Sub-section (2-b)[ is produced in any proceeding under this Act, or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), it shall not be necessary in such proceeding to produce any part of the sample of food taken for analysis.
(5) Any document purporting to be report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under Sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory [not being a certificate with respect to the analysis of the part of the sample of any article of food referred to in the proviso to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 16] shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
Explanation-In this section and in Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16, 'Director of the Central Food Laboratory' shall include the officer for the time being in- charge of any Food Laboratory (by whatever designation he is known) recognised by the Central Government for the purposes of this section.
4. A bare perusal of the said section would clearly reveal that according to Sub-section (2-A) of the Act, when an application is made to the Court under Sub-section (2), the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said Authority and upon such requisition being made the said Authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition. Furthermore, once the said sample has been received by the Court, the Court shall ascertain that the mark and seal are Intact and Is not tempered with. According to Sub-section (2-B), it Is the duty of the Court to dispatch the said sample to the Central Food Laboratory who shall send his report back to the Court within a period of one month. Thus, a duty Is Imposed upon the Court to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The law does not expect the accused to deposit any amount of money for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. In fact, the law Imposes a legal duty on the Court to send the sample on Its own without charging any money from the accused. It, further, Imposes the duty on the Court not to proceed further In the trial until the report Is received from the Central Food Laboratory. It Is, Indeed, trite to state that Section 13 of the Act bestows a right on the accused to get the sample of the alleged adulterated food analyzed Independently from the Central Food Laboratory. According to Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act, the Certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under Sub-section (1). Thus, In case, the report of the Central Food Laboratory Is In favour of the accused, It would come to his defence. Since Section 13 bestows a right on the accused, the right cannot be made Illusory by Imposing a condition upon the accused to deposit money. Therefore, the order dated 8.3.2002 was clearly in violation of Section 13 of the Act. Since the very foundation of the order dated 26.11.2005 is legally untenable, the order dated 26.11.2005 is also perverse.
5. In the result, the three impugned orders dated 8.3.2002, 26.7.2003 and 26.11.2005 are hereby quashed and set aside. In case, the sample of the food still has a self-life, then the Trial Court is directed to send the said sample of Ghee to the Central Food Laboratory immediately for its analysis and report.
6. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.