The petitioners, a partnership firm in these two cases pray for quashing the proceeding in C. R. Case Nos. 408 and 409 of 1981 under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur. 2. On 7.1.81 the Area Food Inspector visited the shop of one Nandalal Agarwala named Dinesh Bhandar and obtained sample of mustard oil and sent the same to the public Analyst. The said vendor disclosed the name of the petitioners as manufacturer and seller of the said sample of mustard oil. The Public Analyst in his report dated 20.2.81 opined that the sample was sub-standard. Whereafter obtaining sanction the vendor as well as the petitioners were prosecuted and charge framed against both on 13.11.81. However, the petitioners were not provided with a copy of the public Analyst's report wherefore they could not make an application to the court as allowed under section 13(2) of the Act. 3. It is submitted by Mr. S. K. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioners that section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and that the petitioners have thus been deprived of valuable right under section 13(2) of the Act and that the vsndor having been protected under the warranty, did not apply for getting the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, and that unless he is given a copy of the report and he applies within ten days of the receipt thereof he will be deprived of the oppor­tunity of defending himself by producing the report of the Central Food Laboratory. Hence the prayer for quashing the proceeding. 4. Mr. C. R. De, the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that manufacturer or seller is not entitled to a copy of the Public Analyst's report and, as such, no infirmity can be found with the impugned proceedings and no prejudice can be pleaded by them. Mr. Hence the prayer for quashing the proceeding. 4. Mr. C. R. De, the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that manufacturer or seller is not entitled to a copy of the Public Analyst's report and, as such, no infirmity can be found with the impugned proceedings and no prejudice can be pleaded by them. Mr. De relies on V. N. Kamdar vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi, AIR 1973 SC 2246 wherein at para II it has-been observed : "Read literally, Section 13(2) would not enable the Manufacturer, distributor or dealer to pray the court to have tae sample sent for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory even if he is impleaded under section 20A and tried along with the vendor, for, that sub-section gives the liberty to move the court for that purpose only to the accused vendor and the complainant. But, even if it is assumed that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also entitled to take advantage of the section and move the court to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory we see no reason why, when he is sepa­rately tried, he should not have the sample retained by the Food Inspector and produced in court sent for ana­lysis by the Central Food Laboratory, if it is available and in a fit condition. The Magistrate may, under Section 20A, implead the manufacturer, distributor or dealer at any time in the course of the trial. At the time he is impleaded, the sample produced in court by the Food Inspector might not be in a fit condition to be sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, It is, therefore impossible to predicate in the abstract whether a joint trial would be more advantageous to the manufacturer, distri­butor or dealer than a separate trial". In that case the question was whether the manufacturer had the right to joint trial rather than a separate trial. 5. In our instant case, admittedly the name of the petitioners was disclosed by the vendor at the time of taking the sample and they have been prosecuted along with the vendor and charge framed against both. Besides, sub-section (2) of section 13 has now been made more comprehensive so as to confer the right under it to the manufacturer and seller as well. Besides, sub-section (2) of section 13 has now been made more comprehensive so as to confer the right under it to the manufacturer and seller as well. Sub-section (2) of section 13 reads thus: "(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any whose name, address and other parti­culars have been disclosed under section 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the dats 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." 6. It is, therefore, clear that the manufacturer or seller is also entitled to a copy of the Public Analyst's report and to apply to the court to get a sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In V. N. Kamdar (supra) their Lordships even assumed that the manufacturer, distributor or dealer was also entitled to take advantage of the section 13 (2) of the Act and observed that he could move the court to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. In Chouthmal Sarma vs. P. C. Saikia and another, (1983y 1 Gauhati Law Reports 34 after considering the decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ghisa Ram, 1975 (1) FAC 186: AIR 1976 S.C. 970; Babulal Hargovindas vs. The State of Gujarat, 1972 FAC 18; 1971 (1) SCC 767 ; and Ajit Prasad Kishan Singh vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1972 FAC 454 : 1972(2) SCC 180 it was held that unless an application under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act was made, it was not open to the accused to challenge the conviction on the ground that he had been deprived of the opportunity under .section 13 (2). In Ghisa Ram (supra) the Supreme court on the facts found that in a case where there was denial of right under section 13 (2) on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, the vendor was so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold the convic­tion on the basis of the report of the Public Analayst, even though the report continued to be evidence in the case. In Dalchand vs. Municipal Corporation, 1982 (2) FAC 29 where the effect of non-compliance of the Rule was such as to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the public Analyst's report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there might be just cause for complaint, as prejudice would then be writ large; but where no prejudice was caused, there could be no cause for complaint. 8. In the instant case, however, as has been stated, the vendor did not apply for a sample being sent to the Central Food Laboratory, he himself being protected by the warranty, and, if the manufacturer or seller is not given opportunity, to make a similar application he would be deprived of the pro­tection of the Central Food Laboratory's report, which, under the law would supersede the report of the Public Analyst. Under such circumstances the court may be justified in considering such an application if made by the petitioners as manufacturer and seller and in sending a sample to the Central Food Laboratory so that the petitioners may not be left to make a grievance in the event of their conviction that they were deprived of such an opportunity given by law. There would, however, be no justi­fication to interfere with the proceedings at this stage on this ground as it is still open for the petitioners to file such an appli­cation before the appropriate Court and it is for the court to consider the application and to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory; and it is ordered accordingly. 9. With the above observation these applications are disposed of. The proceedings will now continue. The stay orders granted by this court are, vacated. Let the records be sent down forthwith.