The delay in sending the sample for analysis under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act resulted in the loss of the accused's statutory right and vitiated the proceedings against them.

1. This criminal revision is filed by the accused challenging the dismissal of the discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 2619 of 2004 in S.T.R. No. 189 of 2003.

2. The complaint arising out of which is S.T.R. No. 189 of 2003 and Crl. M.P. No. 2619 of 2004, is filed by Food Inspector appointed by the Government of Pondicherry under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter shortly referred to as ‘Act‘). The complainant-Inspector inspected the premises of Mythily Agency situated at No. 7, Kalmattu Veedy, Karaikal at 11.30 hours on 30.9.2002 and found food articles like bread, dates, atta etc stored for sale. The complainant has, in exercise of his power vested under Section 10 of the Act, took samples of food viz., 3 x 500 gms packet of Pillsbury Chakki fresh ‘Atta‘ along with another sample after complying with all the legal formalities and the same was duly acknowledged by the first accused. The 3 sample packets (each 500 gms) of Pillsbury chakki fresh ‘Atta‘ were separately packed and wrapped, fastened, labels affixed and local (Health) Authority slips bearing the code and serial No. KFDA/LHA-MKR/2002/24 were fixed and sealed with sealing wax and the signature of the first accused was also obtained in the same. Thereafter, one of the sealed sample packets along with memorandum in Form VII was sent in sealed cover to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Pondicherry-6 on 1.10.2002 and the remaining 2 sealed sample packets along with Form VII copies, were sent to the Local (Health) Authority, Karaikal on 1.10.2002 for his custody. The report of the Public Analyst in prescribed form was received by the complainant and the report is to the effect that ‘Pillsbury Chakki Fresh ‘Atta‘ contains 0.22% (on dry weight basis) alcoholic acidity which is more than maximum permissible limit of 0.18% and therefore, the sample is declared as ‘Adulterated‘. Hence, the complaint came to be instituted to initiate prosecution against A1 to A3, who are the manufacturer and supplier of Atta and the person from whom, Atta sample is drawn.

3. The complaint is filed on 27.1.2003 and the same is taken on file on 30.1.2003 and the accused subsequently received intimation under Section 13(2) of the Act on 7.2.3003. on receipt of the same, the accused made an application under Section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample of the food article kept by the Local (Health) Authority, Karaikal, to be analyzed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad within 10 days from the date of receipt of Section 13(2) intimation and the petition was numbered on 20.2.2003 and the same was ordered on 21.2.2003.

4. In pursuance of the order, second sample of food article was originally sent to Central Food Laboratory, Directorate General of Health Services, Calcultta on 26.5.2003 along with necessary demand draft, but the same was returned back from Calcultta on the ground that the same ought to have been sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad on 24.2.2004 and again, it was sent back from Ghaziabad to Central Food Laboratory, Pune on 4.3.2004 and thereafter, it was sent to Ghaziabad on 6.4.2004 and the second sample was received by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, where it was tested and the report dated 30.4.2004 was sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikal along with covering letter dated 30.4.2004/18.5.2004 and the same was received by the concerned Judicial Magistrate along with report on 24.5.2004 and the report is to the effect that “the same does not conform to the standards of Atta as Alcoholic acidity with 90% Alcohol is more than the maximum prescribed limit” and Atta is hence reported to be adulterated. Thereafter, the accused came forward with Cr. M.P. No. 2619 of 2004 in STR. No. 189 of 2003 under Section 258 Cr.P.C to discharge him from the charges on the ground of violation of mandatory requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for