JUDGMENT 1. - A very short question of law is involved in this petition. The petitioner is facing trial under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short `the Act'). The accusation against him is that the Food Inspector took sample of `Chilly' from his shop and the same was found adulterated on analysis by the Public Analyst. 2. On June 30, 1989 and October 28, 1989 the petitioner moved as applications under Section 13(2) of the Act with a prayer to send the second sample for analysis by Director Central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application, but vide impugned order dated October 12, 1990, directed the petitioner to deposit the entire expenses of analysis to be charged by the Central Food Laboratory. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had challenged the said order on the following two grounds:- (i) that the accused petitioner cannot be asked to pay the amount of fees of analysis chargeable by the Central Food Laboratory after the amendment if the Act in the year 1976; (ii) The Magistrate is under a duty to make the compliance of Subsection (2-B) of Section 13 of the Act before sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The present Section 13 of the Act has been substituted by Section 10 of Act 34 of 1976. Section 13(2), as it stood prior to the amendment is reproduced below:- "(2) After the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vnder on the complainant 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 (ii) of clause (C) of sub-section (1) of section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate; and on receipt of the application the court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 are intact and may then dispatch the part of the sample under his own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the court in the prescribed fees with in one month from the date of receipt of sample specifying the result of his analysis. 4. 4. It is thus clear that under the old section 13 (2), payment of the prescribed fee was a condition precedent to the making of an application by the accused for getting the part of the sample delivered to him under sub-clause (i) of clause (C) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Under clause (xii) of Section 2 `prescribed' means prescribed by rules made under this Act, Rule 4 (6) prescribes the fees for such certificate as Rs. 40/- per sample of food analysed. After receipt of such an application upon payment of the prescribed fee it is the duty of the court to despatch the part of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory after being satisfied that the part of the sample has not been tempered with. Rule 4 lays down the procedure and the manner of despatch of the part of the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. 5. After the amendment, relevant provisions of Section 13 is as follows:- "(2) On receipt 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 one or both of them may make an 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. (2-A) (illegible) shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said authority and upon such requisition being made, the said authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of much requisition. (2-A) (illegible) shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the part or parts of the sample kept by the said authority and upon such requisition being made, the said authority shall forward the part or parts of the sample to the court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of much requisition. (2-B) On receipt of the part of sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2-A), the court shall first certain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be is no tempered with and despatch the part, or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis." 6. It will appear that the words "on payment of the prescribed fee" are absent in the amended Sub-section (2). The intention of the Legislature is quite clear. Payment of the prescribed fee which was condition precedent to getting one part of the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory under the old Sub-section (2) has been done away with in the amended sub-section (2). Payment of fees is no longer necessary for exercise of the right conferred by Sec. 13 (2), by the accused vendor, Rule 6(4), though not deleted in consonance with the amended sub-section (2) has been rendered nugatory. Amended section 13 (2) must everride Rule 6(4). 7. Sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) prescribes the procedure for sending the second sample to Director of Central Food Laboratory. Sub-section (2-B) provides that on receipt of the part of sample from the Local (Health) Authority under Sub-section (2-A) the court shall first ascertain that the mark and (illegible) or instening as provided in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section (illegible) as the case may be, is not tampered with and despatch the part, or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. 8. 8. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to an order of the same Court dated 9.3.89 passed in another case, though by a different Presiding Officer, where the aforesaid view has been taken that the accused is not required to pay fees chargeable by Central Food Laboratory. It is also in the public interest that an accused should not be deprived the valuable right under Sec. 13(2) of the Act of getting a second sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory on the ground of his non-payment of the fees, specially after the amendment made in Section 13 of the Act, as aforesaid. This provision, which is beneficiary to the accused, should be interpreted which leads to justice in the case. After the amendment in the year 1976, the legislative intention appears to be clear and, as such, if no consequential amendments in the rules have been made, the provisions of the Act shall prevail. 9. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay deposit the prescribed fees chargeable by the Central Food Laboratory for analysis of the sample is set aside. The learned Magistrate is further directed to make the compliance of the expressed & mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2-B) of the Act before sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. *******