JUDGMENT The present appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Magistrate in Criminal case No. 412/81 on 14.3.1985. The learned Trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the colour added in the Article (Bargi) seized by the Food Inspector. The submission of the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the applicant the State is that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the seized article contains some substance of 'Coal Tar Dye' which is not permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 are also framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is rebutted by the counsel for the respondent. He submits that neither the seizure memo, nor any other document show the colour of 'Bargi' seized. Even in deposition none of the witnesses say so. The report of the public analyst is vague and cannot be relied upon for conviction of the respondent. Learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the respondent-accused. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused further submits that the case is very old one. It is of the year 1981. Thereafter the respondent accused has also stopped the business and is not carrying on the business at all. Further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent accused is that even the independent witness does not support the deposition of Food Inspector regarding the quantity seized. No price for taking the sample was also given to the respondent-accused. P.W. 2 Shankarlal has not been declared hostile. His statement remains un-challenged, more ever admitted there is no compliance of provision of sub-section (2) of Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. According to him he is entitled to urge further on the ground of acquittal. 'Beside the fact that the colour of the Bargi has, not been specified in the seizure memo or by the Food Inspector himself and in the report of public analyst there is still a lacuna in this case that the respondent-accused was deprived of his right to get the sample examined from the higher authorities as is required under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 13 of the Act. It is necessary that at the time when the report of the public analyst is being sent to the accused a notice to the effect that he has got a right to ask the Court to send one of the sample bottles retained with the local (Health) Authority to the Central Food Laboratory, has to be served upon the accused. This is the substance of Sec. 11 (1) (c) (i) read with Sec. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The right conferred on an accused to get the sample tested by' the Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Calcutta, by making an application for sending the sample, for analysis by the said Authority, is statutory, is right granted to the accused. Admittedly, the accused respondent was deprived of this right because he was not given one sample as is required by the law. Looking to the 'nature of the offence committed and the lapse of period and the fact that the respondent-accused has already given up the said business, no interference in the order of acquittal passed by the lower Court is called. Even otherwise no Irregularity has been committed by the learned Trial Magistrate in acquitting the accused. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the trial magistrate is confirmed.