JUDGMENT (The Hon'ble Mr. justice Rangasamy) This appeal is against the order of acquittal of the respondents by the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai (CCIW) in C.C.No. 44/86 for the offence under Section 2(la) (a) (m) 7(1), 16(1) (a) and Rules 5 Appendix B, Section 17B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 27-6-1985 at 11.15 A.M. the Food Inspector took the sample of Groundnut oil from the shop of the respondents in Door No. 68 Nethaji Road and the Analysis Report reveals that the sample was adulterated. The respondents contended that they requested another sample to be sent to the Court for forwarding the same to another Analyst but the Health Officer did not send the sample within the time prescribed and the mandatory provision of the Act was not complied with by the Food Inspector. The Court below accepting the contention of the accused/respondents, acquitted them of the charges. Hence this appeal. 3. Even though in the lower Court the respondents took up the contention that independent witness is required under Section 10(7) was not examined by the Food Inspector, now the learned Counsel for the respondents is not pressing that Point, as independent witness has been examined though he turned hostile. However, the respondents would contend the Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with by the Local Authorities. The respondents filed a petition before the learned Magistrate to send another sample in the custody of the Local Authority to another Analyst and the Court also passed orders on 29-8-1985 directing the Local Authorities to send the sample to the Court for sending to the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore for analysis. The necessary charge of Rs. 40/- also has been deposited by the respondent/accused. Even though the letter of the learned Magistrate dated 17-9-1985 had reached the Local Authority within one or two days the Health Officer, Local Authority had sent the sample to the Court only on 7-12-1985, that is, nearly three months after the order of the Court below. Under Section 13(2) (A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act the Local Authority has to send the sample to the Court within five days from the date of receipt of the request from the Court. Under Section 13(2) (A) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act the Local Authority has to send the sample to the Court within five days from the date of receipt of the request from the Court. As it is a mandatory provision the Local Health Authority was bound to comply with, but for nearly three months the sample was not sent to the Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was perfectly right in holding that the mandatory provision was not complied with and the respondents/accused shall not be convicted for this latches. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is not able to explain this latches on the part of the Madurai Public Health Authority. Hence the appeal deserve to be dismissed. 4. In the result, confirming the acquittal of the Court below, the appeal is dismissed.