K.S.Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner was standing trial as an accused under section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in the Court of Shri D. S. Chatha, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur. After completion of the prosecution evidence on 11-11-1974, the petitioner applied to the Court for sending the sample of the milk retained by the Food Inspector for examination by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The learned Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner as he was of the view that it was made by the petitioner to delay the proceedings in the case. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner has come to this Court in revision.
(2.) The right of the accused to get examined any of the two samples that is retained by the Food Inspector and supplied to himself, has been recognised by the statute under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The section does not provide for any time-limit for the exercise of this right by the accused person, during the pendency of the case. This right of the accused was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in The Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Behari Lal, 1975 F.A.J. (S.N. 8) wherein it has been held as under:- "No time-limit can be prescribed for the accused to exercise his right under section 13(2) of the Act save that he should exercise such a right before the close of the trial. An accused has to be cautious in the exercise of his right and in his own interest he should take care that by passage of time his sample, even with the addition of preservative, does not deteriorate. If the delay on his part results in the decomposition thereof, the frustration of an accused's right will not be a ground for his acquittal." To the same effect were observations of M. R. Sharma J. in Romesh Chander Vs. The State of Punjab, Cri. Mis. No. 3296-M of 1974, decided on 3rd Dec., 1974.
(3.) The right of the accused to get any of the samples examined by a greater expert has not been contes'ed on behalf of the State. The order of the learned Magistrate under revision is not only erroneous but bad in law and by doing this the learned Magistrate has tried to shut out the statutory right of the accused to show that the analysis of the sample retained by the Food Inspector would not tally with the report of the Public Analyst on the basis of which he has been sent up for trial. On this ground the order of the learned Magistrate is quashed and the file is sent to the same Court for proceeding in accordance with law in the light of the above observations. Revision allowed.;