Respondent thereupon move the trial companyrt for discharging him from prosecution, but the learned Magistrate declined to do so on the premise that the certificate of analysis issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory was number companyplete as results of certain tests were number indicated therein.
When one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Calcutta it was analysed and found to be adulterated as it did number companyform to the standard prescribed for that food article and hence report was forwarded to the Local Health Authority.
The Director of Central Food Laboratory sent a Certificate to the companyrt specifying the result of the analysis to the effect that the food article companytained in the sample companyforms to the standard prescribed for company pounded Asafoetida.
Respondent then moved the High Court in revision challenging the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the companytentions of the respondents and quashed the prosecu tion proceedings.
When respondent entered appearance he made an application to the companyrt for sending one of the remaining parts of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and the companyrt despatched it as prayed for.
The aforesaid proceedings were initiated in the following background On 19.7.1989 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta took sample of companypounded Asafoetida from the shop of the respondent.
A companyplaint was thereafter filed against the respondent before the Magistrate Court companycerned for the aforesaid of fence.
