Judgment : This is a revision case against the order of the learned Eighth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, dismissing a petition filed by the accused in M.P.No.13 of 1978 intimating their intention “to have the Vinotone of 25 ml. analysed and certified by mixing it to syrup and water as per the formula given in the petition and thus have it analysed and certified by the Central Food Laboratory.” 2. The notice under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) with a report of the Public Analyst was served on the accused on 20th April, 1978. Section 13 of the Act requires that such accused person or persons, as the case may be, on whom the report is served may, if it is desired, make and application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. There is no prayer in the petition asking the Court to get the sample of Vinotone kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. On the other hand, the petitioners state at the end of the petition as follows: “The applicants therefore intimate their intention to have the Vinotone of 25 ml. analysed and certified by mixing to syrup and water as per the formula given above when only, it becomes a consumable product and thus have it analysed and certified by the Central Food Laboratory.” The applicants have not requested the Court to get the sample of the article of the food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The expression of their piousintention to have the sample analys-ed may not fructify in the sample being analysed unless the Local (Health) Authority is asked to send the sample through the Court to the Central Food Laboratory. In the absence of such a prayer, the petition is frivolous. 3. That apart, this petition has been filed only on 8th May, 1970, viz., more than ten days after the service of the notice required by section 13(2) of the Act with a report of the Analyst. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the petition. 4. This criminal revision case is dismissed. 3. That apart, this petition has been filed only on 8th May, 1970, viz., more than ten days after the service of the notice required by section 13(2) of the Act with a report of the Analyst. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in dismissing the petition. 4. This criminal revision case is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to take up the case and dispose of the same expeditiously if the case has not already been disposed of.