No fee is required to be deposited by the accused.

Has the accused any legal obligation to remit the fee for sending part of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for a certificate under Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act? The Magistrate held that the accused has to remit the fee. But the accused disputes it and hence challenges the Magistrate’s order in this petition.

2. Petitioner is one of the accused facing a charge for the offence under Sec.16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’). He made the application to the trial court to get the sample of food (kept by the Local (Health) Authority) analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory as provided in Sec. 13(2) of the Act. The learned Magistrate directed him to remit a fee of Rs.40 but he resisted saying that he is not liable to remit any fee under law for exercising his option under Sec. 13(2). But the learned Magistrate, by a considered order (1 should say a well considered order) overruled the petitioner’s objections. Petitioner approached the Sessions Court in revision against the Magistrate’s order. But the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, for default without adverting to the point raised by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the fee sought be paid is not a big sum for the petitioner, he was directed to remit it in the trial court without prejudice to his right to have the point decided. (Learned Counsel informed that the amount was remitted in trial court and the second sample was forwarded to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The petitioner will not claim reimbursement of the amount even if the decision on this point is in his favour).

3. Medical charges were brought about by Act 34 of 1976. (It will be referred to as “1976 amendment”). There is no dispute that before the 1976 amendment the person who applied to have the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory had the Legal obligation to remit the prescribed fee. Sec. 13(2), as it stood before 1976 amendment, was like this:

“After the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor or the complaint may, on payment of the prescribed fee, made an application to the court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in Sub-clause-(1) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of Sub-sec(1) of Sec. 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for certificate, and no receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of Sub-sec(1) of Sec.11are intact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of the analysis”

After 1976 amendment, Sec.l3(2) stands thus:

“On receipt of the report of the result of the analyst under Sub-sec(l) 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 article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Sec. 14-A, 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 it is so desired, either/or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date or receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the articles of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory”.

4. The striking change in the Sub-section after 1976 amendment is the deletion of the words “...... on payment of the prescribed fee........”. A closer reading will disclose certain other chang