M.R.A. Ansari, J. - (1.) The petitioner is being tried in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, for an offence under section 16/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the alleged sale of adulterated ice-cream on 19.5.1973. During the course of the trial, the petitioner made an application to the Court under section 13(2) of the Act for sending the sealed bottle which was given to him by the Food Inspector to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. By his order dated 16.3.1974, the learned Magistrate rejected this application on the ground that wrapper and seal of the bottle produced by the petitioner for being sent to the Central Food Laboratory appeared to have been tampered with the petitioner was examined under section 342 Cr. P.C., (1898), he made an application on 30.4.1974 for sending the same bottle to the Director of the Central Forensic Laboratory, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, along with the bottle which had been produced in Court by the Food Inspector for comparison of the wrappers and seals on the two bottles and for opinion whether the bottle produced by the petitioner had been tampered with. This application too was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.6.1974 on the ground that the earlier application by the petitioner for sending the bottle to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had been rejected. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Session but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was in. the nature of an interlocutory order against which no revision lay under section 397(2) Cr. P.C. 1973. The petitioner has filed the present revision petition, against the said order of the learned Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.
(2.) There can be no doubt thar the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is in the nature of an interlocutory order and neither the Sessions Judge nor this Court can exercise their revision powers against such an order by virtue of the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) of section 397 of the new Code. The fact that interlocutory orders of the subordinate courts have been taken out of the purview of the powers of revisional courts casts a greater responsibility on the subordinate courts in passing such interlocutory orders. Section 13(2) of the Act confers a right upon an accused person to have the sample given to him by the Food Inspector examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The petitioner was deprived of this valuable right on the sole ground that the wrapper and the seal of the bottle produced by him appeared to have been tampered, with. The further request of the petitioner to obtain the opinion of the Director of the Central Forensic Laboratory, R.K. Puram, on the alleged tampering of the wrapper and the seal of the bottle produced by him appears to be a very legitimate request. This request was also turned down by the learned Magistrate on a wholly untenable ground viz. that the earlier request for sending the bottle to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis had been rejected. Although it is not open to this Court to interfere in revision with the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is, however, not without a remedy. It is open to him to summon the Director of the Central Forensic Laboratory, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, as a defence witness and to elicit his opinion on the question whether the wrapper and the seal of the bottle produced by him were tampered with. If the witness desires that in order to give his opinion, it is necessary for him to examine the bottle in his laboratory. I am sure that the Court would, permit him to do so. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed. The records of this case shall be immediately sent back to the trial Courts. Petition dismissed.;