JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an application in revision by accused Netrapal against the order dated December 21, 1967 passed by Shri S. Prasad, Magistrate 1st Class, Agra, rejecting his application under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (henceforth referred to as the Act) praying that the sample retained by the Food Inspector under the provisions of Section 11 (c) (iii) be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. The applicant went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the same by his order dated January 10, 1968 as the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that no legal question was involved in the case. Thereafter the applicant has come up to this Court. 2. It is urged that the order dated December 21, 1967 passed by the learned Magistrate was illegal as he was bound to grant the application in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. The sub-section lays down:- "After the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor ...... may, on payment of the prescribed fee. make an application to the Court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate, and on receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 are in tact and may then despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the' Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed form, within one month from the date of receipt of the sample, specifying the result of his analysis." 3. It is clear from the provisions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act that the accused from whom the sample was taken could apply for sending the sample mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 `after the institution of a prosecution under this Act'. It is clear from the provisions laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act that the accused from whom the sample was taken could apply for sending the sample mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 `after the institution of a prosecution under this Act'. It is nowhere provided in the Act that the application should be made at an earlier stage or before the date for defence evidence is fixed. Prosecution of an accused continues till judgment is pronounced. Moreover, as the application was moved on the dale fixed for defence evidence, it should not have been dismissed merely on the ground that it was belated. An accused by delaying moving an application under sub-section (2) of Section 13 takes the risk of the sample deteriorating then becoming unfit for analysis. If due to the delay on the part of the accused the Director of the Central Food Laboratory finds that the sample has become unfit for analysis, the accused himself would suffer. 4. In this case, however, it was rightly brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the application moved by the applicant was an incompetent application and, therefore, it was rightly rejected though the reason for rejecting the same may have been wrong. It was pointed out that from the words ".... the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application .... " appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act it is clear that the prescribed fee had to be deposited or paid by the applicant before be moved the application in question in the trial court. Depositing the prescribed fee was a condition precedent. It was not challenged on behalf of the applicant that no fee, much less the prescribed fee was deposited by the applicant in the trial court. The application, therefore, was rightly rejected. 5. In view of the reasons discussed, the revision application is rejected. The stay order dated February 5. 1968 is vacated. Let the record of the case be sent back to the trial court as early as possible so that the case may be disposed of without further delay.