It followed the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in George Kutty Vs.
As a companysequence, the learned Magistrate was directed to take appropriate steps in the matter, without requiring any payment by the accused.
The respondents neither deposited the said amount number challenged the said direction for deposit of the fee.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, the first respondent made an application under Section 13 2 of the Act to get a second analysis of sample of the article of food kept with the Local Health Authority, by the Central Food Laboratory.
The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the said application on 8.5.1996 and directed the respondents to deposit the fee prescribed under Rule 4 6 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 Rules for short for issue of Certificate by the Central Food Laboratory.
The Sessions Court, in revision, affirmed that order.
803 of 1998.
803 of 1998.
The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal, rejected the said objection by order dated 18.9.1997.
The revisional order was challenged by the respondents before the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No.
State of Kerala 1991 1 PFAC 133, and held that the right to have a second analysis was a privilege subject to payment of fee under the old section 13 2 of the Act, and that stood companyverted to an unconditional legal right of the accused under the new section 13 2 , substituted by Act 34 of 1976.
The said order of the High Court is challenged by the State in this appeal.
Nearly one year later, the respondents raised an objection that having regard to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, they were number required to deposit any fee for the second analysis.
The Food Inspector, Rajkot launched a prosecution against the respondents in respect of offences under Sections 7 i and v of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Act for short punishable under Section 16 of the said Act.
The High Court, by its order dated 7.10.1999, allowed the application, set aside the orders of the learned Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge and held that it is the obligation of the State or Local Authority to subject the sample to analysis under section 13 2 and there was numberobligation on the accused to bear or pay the fee for the second analysis.
J U D G E M E N T RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the State of Gujarat against the judgment dated 7.10.1999 passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal Application No.
