V.Ramaswami, J. - (1.) In this case the High Court dismissed the appeal not only on account of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent but also on the ground that the respondent was deprived by reason of the delay of the opportunity of making application to the Court under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) for sending a part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for analyst's report. For the reasons given in our judgment in Crl. A. No. 8 of 1966 the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent is not valid and should have been rejected by the High Court. But in view of the fact that the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to make an application to the Court under Section 13 (2) of the Act it is non desirable to order retrial in this easel The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;