P.P.BHATT, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2013 as well as 14.07.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Revision No.163 of 2005, whereby the revision filed against the order dated 2.9.2005 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Deoghar, in TR. No.160 of 2013, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, has been dismissed by the Revisional Court below.
(3.) FROM the prosecution report it appears that the sample of 'Pera' was taken from the shop of the petitioner and it was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst upon analysis. On the basis of the said report the cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It appears after receipt of the report of the Public Analyst, the petitioner had exercised the option under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample tested before the Central Food Laboratory at Kolkata, and the said prayer was allowed by the Court below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such cases where the petitioner has exercised option under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to get the sample tested before the Central Food Laboratory at Kolkata and when such prayer is allowed by the Court, as per Section 13 (2D) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, until the result of the analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is received, the Court shall not proceed further with the matter. It is submitted that in the instant case without awaiting for the result of analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, the leaned court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner and therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the order dated 16.09.2014, passed in Cr. M. P. No. 2474 of 2013, wherein in similar set of facts, a co -ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the matter and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 02.09.2005 as well as the revisional order dated 16.01.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Cr. Revision No.161/2005. ;