1. Petitioner was found guilty of offences under S.7(1), and 14(A) read with S.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The article involved is Bengal dam. By Ext. P10 report, Public Analyst found, that the sample analysed did not conform to the standards prescribed. At the instance of the petitioner, one part of the sample was sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis and by Ext. P16 report, Central Food Laboratory also found the article adulterated, as not conforming to standard.

2. Counsel far petitioner challenges the conviction on several grounds. I advert only to one, for I think he is entitled to succeed on that ground.

3. By CMP 377/81 dated 27-1-81 petitioner prayed that one part of the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. On 28-1-81, magistrate below ordered the petition stating "allowed", and no more. S.13(2)(b) of the Act requires that on receipt of the part or parts of the sample, court shall ascertain, if the mark and seal of fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.11 are intact and if the signature or thumb impression, is not tampered with. This is to be ascertained before the sample is sent for