Capoor, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order made in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentencing Tara Dutt petitioner to pay a fine of Rs 100.00 or in default to S.I. for one month and Hira Lal petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 or in default to S.I. for two months.
(2.) Mr. Bipan Behari Lal on behalf of the petitioners has taken up the following legal objections :
(3.) His clients were placed on trial on the 7th of 1957, when the allegationst them were put to them On 16th of Feb, 1957, the prosecution evidence and the statements of the petitioners were recorded. 22nd Feb, 1957, was the date fixed for arguments, and on that date the petitioners moved an application under section 13 of the P.F.A. Act in the court for sending a part of the sample of butter recovered from the restaurant out of Hira Lal petitioner to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, for analysis. That application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was belated. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under sub section (2) of section 13 of the Act, such an application could only be made after the prosecution under the Act had teen instituted, and in the circumstances of this case, there was no unreasonable delay in making the application, and accordingly the trial court could not reject it. These contentions appear to be correct, it would be futile now to order a retrial. Accordingly, accepting the revision petition and setting aside the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner, I acquit them. The fines, if paid, to be refunded. Petition accepted.;