A S. Bains, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the interim order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jullundur, dated the 16th Sept., 1974. The proceedings against the petitioner are pending under section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as Act) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Jullundur. During the pendency of the proceedings he filed an application under section 13(2) of the Act requesting that the sample bottle with the doctor be get tested from Director, Central Food Laboratory. This request was disallowed by the Magistrate vide his impugned order dated the 16th Sept., 1974.
(2.) The only point urged by the petitioner is that under section 13(2) of the Act the Magistrate is bound to send the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. I find merit in this contention. The matter is concluded by the judgment of our own High Court in Sabu Ram Vs. The State of Punjab 1970 P.L.R. 601 wherein it is held as under:- "That an option is given to an accused person to have recourse to an "appeal" to the Director's judgment from that of the Public Analyst. Now. if it was left to the Court either to send the sample or to decline to do so, the whole purpose of the sub-section would be defeated. In the context in which the word "may" occurs in the sub-section, therefore, it must be held to mean "shall" or "must".
(3.) The matter also came up before the Division Bench of this Court and it was held in Municipal Committee Amritsar Vs. Behari Lal 1974 F.A.C. 432 , that the application can be filed at any stage of the trial and that there is no limitation for filing an application under section 13(2) of the Act. In the present case, the main reason for declining the application was the delay on the part of the petitioner but 1 am bound by the Division Bench authority of our own High Court wherein it is held that the application can be made at any stage of the trial. Mr. Bachittar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State, could not show me any authority of our own High Court or Supreme Court in which a contrary view is taken.;