JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 26th July, 1986 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad allowing the revision filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and setting aside the order dated 26th September, 1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and directing the present applicant Ram Pyare to deposit requisite fee to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta within seven days. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant urged that under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) and the rules made thereunder there was no such provision that a person who was made an accused in the proceeding u/s 7/16 of the Act would be required to pay the requisite fee for sending the sample to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, hence the impugned order was incorrect and cannot be sustained. 3. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party on the other hand urged that the impugned order was correct and fee has correctly been ordered to be deposited by the applicant for sending the sample to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties the point for determination is as to whether the expenses for sending the sample to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory would be borne by the person from whose possession the sample was taken or shall be borne by the Local Authority or by the State. Exabundenti Cautela, the relevant provision of Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act are set out below: Rule 12: Expenses in connection with the collection and despatch of food samples: All expenses incurred in connection with the collection and despatch of food samples for analysis and in the prosecution of persons under the Act or rules framed thereunder shall be met by the local authority within whose jurisdiction the sample of food is collected by its Food Inspectors or the offence is committed. Where no such local authority exists, such expenses shall be met by the State Government. 5. u/s 13(2) of the Act, the sample is required to be sent to Central Food Laboratory by the person from whose possession sample was taken. Where no such local authority exists, such expenses shall be met by the State Government. 5. u/s 13(2) of the Act, the sample is required to be sent to Central Food Laboratory by the person from whose possession sample was taken. No provision was shown by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the person from whose possession sample was taken, would pay requisite fee for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory. A Court has to interpret the law as it is and not as it ought to be. In other words a Court can interpret and not legislate. Rule 12 evinces that provision of expenses incurred in sending the sample to be analysed by the Laboratory for prosecution of the person from whose possession sample was taken, shall be borne by the Local Authority or by the State Government. It is evident from a bare reading of the said rule that the despatch of food sample for analysis is very comprehensive. It includes despatch of food sample even at the notice of the person from whose possession sample was taken. In the instant case there is no doubt that expenses for sending the sample to be analysed has to be borne only by Local Authority or Municipal Corporation or by the State Government and not by the person from whose possession the sample was taken. The impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the discussion hereinbefore made, the revision succeeds and is allowed, the order dated 27th July, 1986 is set aside and it is made clear that the expenses for sending the sample to be analysed would be borne by the local authority. The record of the case would be sent back immediately.