- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16 8-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (henceforth to be referred to as the Act') praying that a sample of the article allegedly adulterated should be sent for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 15-4-1997 the Food Inspector collected some sample of the milk from the petitioner, which was subsequently found to be adulterated. Therefore, on 19-11-1997, the Food Inspector submitted a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 7/17 of the Act. On 27-11-2002 i.e. after a lapse of five years, the petitioner submitted an application under Section 13(2) of the Act as aforementioned. However, vide Order dated 16-8-2005 the said application was dismissed by the learned Court. Hence, this petition before us.
(3.) Mr. Kapil Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Section 13 of the Act provides a valuable right to the alleged offender to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. He has further argued that according to the case of Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan 1997 (2) RLW 1422 : (1998 Cri LJ 32), the provisions of Section 13(2) are not mandatory but are merely directory in nature. Therefore, the requirement that a prayer be made by the alleged offender to the trial Court within a period of 10 days from the receipt of the Report of the public analysts is merely directory and not mandatory. Hence, according to him, whenever a request is made to the Court to send the sample for an independent analysis by a Central Food Laboratory, the request has to be granted by the Court. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the said request is against the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.;