JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under S. 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed with a prayer that the impugned order, dated 25.4.89 be set aside and the proceedings pending against the petitioner for offence under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in after referred to as `the Act of 1954"), be quashed. 2. The short point on which the petitioner has approached this court is that while a complaint was filed against him by the Food Inspector, Karauli on November 17, 1987, in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, he moved an application before that court for exercising his right under S. 13(2) of the Act of 1954 to send another sample for examination to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.2.1987 sent the sample of the mixed milk to the Central Food Laboratory under the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Act of 1954 to which a reply was sent by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta dated 4.3.1987 wherein it was mentioned that the sample is broken, it is unfit/insufficient for analysis hence rejected, counter part of the sample may be sent for analysis and report. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate then on 9.12.89 sent yet another sample as contemplated by sub-s. (21(c) of S. 13 of the Act of 1954 and in reply to the same the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta mentioned in its report, -Small quantities of milk powder were found on stopper as well as on the sample bottle. The wax on the stopper of the bottle was not intact which raises suspicion of tampering". The Central Food Laboratory still analysed the sample and opined that sample of the mixed milk is not adulterated. On receipt of this report from Central Food Laboratory a prayer was made to the court to send another third part of the sample under proviso (2)(c) of section 13 of the Act of 1954. The Central Food Laboratory having examined the sample sent its report. On receipt of this report from Central Food Laboratory a prayer was made to the court to send another third part of the sample under proviso (2)(c) of section 13 of the Act of 1954. The Central Food Laboratory having examined the sample sent its report. It is thereafter that an application was moved be the petitioner before the trial court that it is clear from the report of CFA that the sample of the Food is not adulterated and in the alterative because the seals have been broken and chances of tampering were not ruled out and the petitioner had no opportunity to exercise his right, the proceedings against him be quashed. The trial court rejected the prayer vide impugned order, dated 25.4.89. Record was sent for and parties were heard. The petitioner has to succeed on either of the count because the finality has been attached to the report of the Central Food Laboratory by legislation. Accused has been given a right under section 13 of the Act of 1954 to make an application to the court for sending a part of the sample mentioned in sub-clause (i) of sub- clause (ii) of S. 11 of the Act of 1954 to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for a certificate. The court has no choice but to send that sample for examination. Sub-S.(3) of that Section declares that certificate issued by the Director, Central Food Laboratory shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under Sub-S (1). It is further laid down in sub-Section(5) that any document purporting to be report sent by the Public Analyst unless it has been superseded under sub-s. (i) or any document purported to be certificate signed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory may be used as an evidence of fact stated therein in any proceeding under the provisions of S. 272 to 276 Indian Penal Code provided that the document purported to be a certificate signed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Thus the Magistrate had before him a certificate which indicated that there was no offence at all committed by the accused. I am fortified in my view by a decision of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Murlidhar Dullabadas Wani and others. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1978 Cri. L. J. 70 . Thus the Magistrate had before him a certificate which indicated that there was no offence at all committed by the accused. I am fortified in my view by a decision of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Murlidhar Dullabadas Wani and others. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1978 Cri. L. J. 70 . Hon'ble Chhinnappa Reddy J. speaking for the Bench in Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, AIR 1981 S.C. 1387 , held that in a case where an objection was taken before the trial court that the certificate of the Director, Central Food Laboratory should be excluded from consideration as the Director had reported that the specimen impression seal' sent to him did not tally with the seal of the container in which the sample of oil was sent to him. Their Lordships held as under : "It is clear that the conviction cannot stand. Under S. 13(3) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the report of the Public Analyst stood superseded by the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Having been so superseded, the report of the Public Analyst could not, therefore, be relied upon to base a conviction. The certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory having been excluded from consideration because of the tampering of the seals, there was really no evidence before the court on the basis of which the appellant could be convicted. The court could not fall back on the report of the Public Analyst as it had been superseded. The only method of challenging the report of the Public Analyst was by having the sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. In the present case the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to which he was entitled for no fault of his. It was not, therefore, open to the court to fall back upon the report of the Public Analyst to convict the appellant." 3. In the light of the aforesaid discussion I have no hesitation in accepting this petition and, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli dated 25.4.89 and quash the entire proceedings in case No. 16 of 1987 pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli.Petition allowed *******