( 1 ) IN this group of revision applications a short question has been referred for our consideration. The said question reads as follows. Whether after the report of the Public Analyst gets superseded by the certificate of the Director Central Food Laboratory who examines the part of the sample of food article collected under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) it is open to the accused to plead that if there is any variance between the aforesaid two reports the prosecution must explain the said variance or otherwise fail. 7 before embarking upon the consideration of the question posed for our decision it will be advantageous to have a birds eye view of the relevant provisions of the statute governing the field. The Act has been enacted by the Parliament with a view to making provisions for prevention of adulteration of food. Sec 2 (v) defines food to mean any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes: (A) any article which ordinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food (b) any flavouring matter or condiments; and (c) any other article which the Central Government may having regard to its use nature substance or quality; declare by notification in the Official Gazette as food for the purposes of this Act.

( 2 ) SEC. 11 lays down the procedure to be followed by food inspector functioning under the Act for taking samples of food for analysis. As per sec. 11 (11) (a) the food inspector has to give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analyzed to the person from whom The has taken the sample and to the person if any whose name address and other particulars have been disclosed under sec. 14a. Sub-sec. (1) (b) of sec. 11 provides that when the food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis he shall except in special cases provided by rules under the Act divide the sample then and there into three parts mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed. As per sec. 11 (1) (c) the food inspector has to send one of the parts for analysis to the public analyst under intimation to the local health Authority and to send the remaining two parts to the local health Authority for the purposes of sub-sec. (2) of this section and sub-secs. (2a) and (2b) of sec. 13. When we turn to sec. 11 (2) we find that it provides that where the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) is lost or damaged the local health Authority shall on a requisition made toit by the Public Analyst or the Food Inspector dispatch one of the parts of the sample sent to it under sub-clause. (ii) of the said clause (c) to the Public Analyst for analysis. Sec. 13 of the Act deals with report of Public Analyst. As the resolution of the question posed for our consideration revolves round the relevant provisions contained in the said section it would be profitable to reproduce the said section in extenso as under:"13 (1) The Public Analyst shall deliver in such form as may be prescribed a report to the local health authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-sec. (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated the local health authority shall after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person if any whose name address and other particulars have been disclosed under sec. 14a forward in such manner as may be prescribed a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons as the case may be informing such person or persons that if