JUDGMENT V.N. Verma, J. - Additional District Magistrate, Meerut, has made this reference with a recommendation to quash the order dated 7.11.1973 passed by the City Magistrate, Meerut, in a case under section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. On 26.6.1972 one Om Prakash was found selling milk. The Food Inspector suspected that the milk sold by him was adulterated and so he purchased some milk by way of sample. He divided that milk in three parts and kept each part in a separate phial, and sealed all the three phials in accordance with law. He gave one phial to Om Prakash, deposited the second one in the office of the Municipal Medical Officer of Health and sent the third one to the Public Analyst for report. The Public Analyst found the sample of milk sent to him to be deficient in non-fatty solids contents. As the milk was found to be adulterated, Om Prakash was sent up to stand his trial under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. During the trial of the case, Om Prakash made an application to send the phial of the sample given to him to the Director Central Food Laboratory for analysis under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He produced his phial in Court when the Food Inspector was being examined. The prosecution raised an objection that the seal of the phial was not intact and as such there was no guarantee that it had not been tampered with. The trial Court basing its opinion on the opinion of an expert held that the seal of the phial had not been tampered with. Accordingly, it gave the benefit of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to the applicant and directed (vide order dated 7.1 1.1973) that the phial produced by him be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Food Inspector, Municipal Board, Meerut felt aggrieved with this order of the trial Court and filed a revision in the Court of the District Magistrate, Meerut. This revision was heard and decided by A.D.M. (E), Meerut. A.D.M. (E), Meerut, found the order dated 7.11.1973 to be bad in law and made the present reference. 4. The accused Om Prakash did not put in appearance to contest this reference. This revision was heard and decided by A.D.M. (E), Meerut. A.D.M. (E), Meerut, found the order dated 7.11.1973 to be bad in law and made the present reference. 4. The accused Om Prakash did not put in appearance to contest this reference. I, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the State only. After hearing him I am of the view that the reference made by A.D.M. (E) is absolutely correct. In this case the accused wanted to take benefit of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The relevant portion of it reads as follows :- "..........the accused......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..........." 5. In this case I find that the accused Om Prakash just gave an application for sending the phial kept with him to the Director Central Food Laboratory for analysis, but never deposited the prescribed fee for that purpose. Depositing of prescribed fee was a condition precedent for taking advantage of the provisions of section 13 (2) referred to above. The accused had made the application for sending his phial to the Director Central Food Laboratory on 29.2.1972, but even upto the time the impugned order was passed, no fee had been deposited by him. The order sheet of the date on which the impugned order was passed shows that the trial court had directed the accused to deposit the fee, but despite that, he never deposited it. As the depositing of the prescribed fee was a condition precedent for taking advantage of the benefit of the provisions of section 13 (2), the trial court fell in error when despite the non-compliance of that condition precedent, it ordered that the phial produced by the accused be sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The order passed by the trial court was patently wrong and as such A.D.M. (E) has rightly made a recommendation to this Court that it be quashed. 6. Accordingly I accept the reference and quash the impugned order, dated 7.11.1973.