LexSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus SHAILESHBHAI MANSUKHLAL SHAH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF GUJARA TAND ANR. v. SHAILESHBHAI MANSUKHLAL SHAH AND ANR. MAY 30,2007 B [R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954/Rules, 1955-ss. 13 (2)/r. 4(6)-liability to pay fee for analysis of second sample by Central Food c"' Laboratory-Held, is on the accused Interpretation of Statutes: Substitution of Statutory provision-Held: New Provision to b·e read and construed with reference to its wording and not with reference to wording D of old provision. The question which has arisen for consideration in the present appeal is that if the accused is not satisfied with the correctness/accuracy of the report of public analyst and seeks analysis of second part of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory by exercising his right under s, 13(2) of the E Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, then whether he is bound to pay the fee prescribed under Ru.le 4(6) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1. S. 13 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 does not require payment of any fee to the Central Food Laboratory for the second analysis. Nor does it say that the complainant/State or local (Health) Authority should bear the cost of second analysis. Nor does it say that when an accused makes an application for a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, such analysis shall be done free of cost. In facts. 13 does not deal with the G fee part. Other provisions deal with the fee to be paid S. 4 requires the Centr:al Government to es~blish one or more Central Food Laboratories to carry out the functions entrusted to the Central Food Laboratory by the Act or the Rules made under the Act. Sub-section (2) of s. 4 empowers the Central Government to make rules prescribing the procedure for submission of samples for H 850 I . -. \ ... •. STA TEOF GUJARAT v. SHAILESHBHAI MANSUKHLAL SHAH 85 l analysis/tests to the Central Food Laboratory, the forms of the Laboratory's A Reports and the fees payable in respect of such reports. Rule 496) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides that a fee of Rs. 200 (now Rs. 1000) should be paid to the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate under s. 13(2) of the Act. Form-I of Appendix-A to the Rules makes it clear that when the Court sends a requisition to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis of the sample under s. 13(2) the Court is required to enclose a demand .B draft for the amount of fee for analysis !Para 711857-E, F, G; 858-AI George Kutty v. State of Kera/a, (1991) 1 PEFC 133, overruled . Rajendra Kumar v. State of MP., (1994) 2 PFAC 56; Mohd Saifv. Local C Helath Authority, Melur Municipality, (1996) 1 PF AC 20, approved. 1.2. S. 13(2) when rea<t with s.4(2)(b) and Rule 4, makes it clear that the analysis by the Central Food Laboratory is not free of cost, but subject to ·payment of the prescribed fee and that such fee should be paid in advance The non-mention of fee ins. 13 does not mean that the provision for payment of D fee under s. 4(2) read with Rule 4(6) is negated or rendered obsolete. !Para 7) (858-BJ 2.1. The payment to Central Food Laboratory due under Rule 4(6) has ' to come from someone. Logically the choices are (a) the complainant (Food Inspector/State); (b) the Local (Health) Authority; (c) the Court; (d) the person E who requires the second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. !Para 811858-CI 2.2. The Food Inspector (who is the complainant), when he takes a sample of food for analysis is required to divide the sample into three parts and send one part for analysis to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the F local health authority. The fee/cost of analysis by the public analyst is prescribed under the relevant state rules and is paid by the local authority concerned. The Food Inspector cannot require a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory under section 13(2). He does not require a second analysis , to prove the charge. The provision for second analysis is an option given to G the accused and not the complainant. A request by the accused for second analysis is not a request by the complainant. The Act does not require tbe complainant to pay the fees for the second analysis. Therefore, the question of complainant paying the fee for the second analysis does not arise. 1858-D, E, Fl (Para 8.11 H ·- ' - ST ATE OF GUJARAT v. SHAILESHBH
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.