AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suryamurthy, J.—This is a revision case against the order of the learned Eighth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, dismissing a petition filed
by the accused in M.P. No. 13 of 1978 intimating their intention ""to have the VINOTONE of 25 ml. analysed and certified by mixing it to syrup
and water as per the formula given in the petition and thus have it analysed and certified by the Central Food Laboratory"".
The notice under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) with a report of the Public Analyst
was served on the accused on 20th April, 1978. S. 13 of the Act requires that such accused person or persons, as the case may be, on whom the
report is served may, if it is so desired, make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the
report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. There is no prayer in
the petition asking the Court to get the sample of VINOTONE kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory.
On the other hand, the petitioners.; state at the end of the petition'' as follows :
The applicants, therefore intimate their intention to have the Vinotone of 25 ml. analysed and Certified by mixing is to syrup and water as pet the
(sic) above when only it becomes a consumable product and thus have it analysed and certified by the Central Food Laboratory.
The applicants have not requested the Court to get the sample of the article of the food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the
Central Food Laboratory. The expression, of their pious intention to have the sample analysed may not fructify in the sample being analysed unless
the Local (Health) Authority is asked to send the sample through the Court to the Central Food Laboratory. In the absence of such a prayer, the
petition is frivolous.
That apart, this petition has been filed only on 8th May, 1978, viz., more than ten days after the service of the notice required by S. 1(2) of the
Act with a report of the Analyst. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the petition.
This criminal revision case is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take up the case and dispose of the same expeditiously if the case
has not already been disposed of.