ORDER :- This revision arises out of proceedings relating, to the prosecution of the applicant under S.16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 37 of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. A sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector and sealed in three bottles. One of these bottles was sent to the Public Analyst in ordinary course. When the report of the analysis was received the applicant was prosecuted. He asked for the sample in the possession of the Cantonment Board, Meerut, being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, under Sub-S. (2) of S.13 of the Act. The report of the Director not being favourable to the applicant, he made a fresh application for the sample in his possession being sent to the Director but his request was rejected by the Magistrate and his revision to the Sessions Judge also having been dismissed, he has come to this Court against the aforesaid order. 3. The question involved for decision, therefore is whether a second request can be made by an accused person under Sub-S. (2) of S.13 of the Act to have the sample of the alleged adulterated food being examined again by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. So far as the provisions of Sub-S. (2) of S.13 of the Act are concerned, the accused person has the option to apply for the sample mentioned in sub-cl. (i) or the sample mentioned in sub-cl. (iii) of cl.(c) of Sub-S. (1) of S.11 being sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. Sub-clause (1) aforesaid relates to the sample which is delivered to the person from whom the article is taken and it is the third part of the sample which is retained in the office of the Municipal or Cantonment Board. Sub-Section (2) of S.13 of the Act, therefore, entitled an accused person only to get either of the two samples analysed and examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. When his report is received, the proviso to Sub-S. (5) of S.13 makes that report final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Although there is no clear prohibition in the Act that the accused person cannot ask for the third sample in his possession also being sent to the Director for examination by him, the intention behind the provisions of S.13 is obvious. Although there is no clear prohibition in the Act that the accused person cannot ask for the third sample in his possession also being sent to the Director for examination by him, the intention behind the provisions of S.13 is obvious. In the first place there is no specific provision that even after the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is received, a third attempt may be made to have the third sample also examined. Then Sub-S. (2) of S.13 of the Act permits an accused person to get only either of the two samples mentioned in sub-cls. (i) and (iii) of cl.(c) of S.11(1) being sent to the Director. Thereafter when the report of the Director is received, the law provides that that report shall be treated as final and conclusive. This provision in the Act virtually prohibits any other evidence being brought on record relating to the adulteration of the particular food-stuff. If the report received from the Director of the sample being sent under Sub-S. (2) of S.13 becomes final and conclusive no other report can be obtained even from him for otherwise the effect of that second report from him, if it is not in conformity with his earlier report, would be to negative the opinion given by him in his first report. That would take away the finality and conclusiveness of the report. It is clear, therefore, that the intention of the Legislature is that the report of the Director when once received should be treated as final and conclusive. The only option given to the accused is that he may get either of the two samples examined. Having exercised that option, be could not have the third sample sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for securing a second opinion. The view taken by the two Courts below is correct. 4. The application in revision has no force and is consequently dismissed. The stay order is vacated. Petition dismissed.