JUDGMENT : 1. None for the applicant. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. K.R. Deshpande appears for the non-applicant/State. 2. By this criminal revision application, the applicant is challenging judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class at Wardha on 17.9.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No.210 of 1993, by which the present applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, “the said Act”). On such conviction, the present applicant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 3. An appeal, which was carried by the applicant bearing Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1999, was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge at Wardha vide his judgment dated 10.3.2005. 4. This Court, vide order dated 15.3.2005, admitted the present criminal revision application and released the present applicant on bail. 5. In absence of learned counsel for the applicant, with assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. K.R. Deshpande for the non-applicant/State, I have gone through the record and proceedings. Few facts will be necessary for just decision in the present case. 6. PW1 Shri Sudam Paikuji Nandanwar was appointed as Food Inspector under Gazette Notification Exhibit 14 dated 20.11.1984 so also further Notification published in the Government Gazette Exhibit 15 on 21.10.1993 for Wardha. 7. On 6.8.1992, Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar visited a commercial establishment known as ‘Rathi Tea Company at Wardha’ along with PW3 pancha Dilip Hargovindas Dron, who did support the prosecution. At the time of visit of Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar, the present applicant was present in the premises and was conducting business. Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar disclosed his identity and explained that he wished to inspect the shop and wished to obtain samples of food articles stored in the shop for sale. Inspection report Exhibit 16 was prepared. He noticed that the applicant had stored about 10 Kilograms of Tea in open Gunny Bag and some packets of ‘Umang Brand Tea’. He took samples on dry clean paper, which was blank, which was supplied to him by the present applicant at the request of Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar. After purchase of samples, he paid amount and obtained receipt Exhibit 17. He took samples on dry clean paper, which was blank, which was supplied to him by the present applicant at the request of Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar. After purchase of samples, he paid amount and obtained receipt Exhibit 17. Thereafter, he issued a copy of Form No.VI Exhibit 18 to the present applicant. He also issued a Notice Exhibit 19 under Section 14A of the said Act. 8. Thereafter, Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar divided quantity of 450 Kilograms loose Tea in 3 equal parts and each part of loose Tea was put in separate dry clean and empty containers. Then, he put the paper slips issued by the Local Health Authority at Wardha bearing Code No.WRD/24/ND at serial No.2324. The same were sent to Public Analyst at Nagpur which was received by the said office on 10.8.1992. 9. The Public Analyst at Nagpur gave its report Exhibit 36 on 17.9.1992. He found that the sample of Tea powder was not contaminated or it was not found to be adulterated of any foreign material. 10. The matter could have been stopped there. However, the Assistant Commissioner, Local Health Authority at Wardha sent the remaining samples to Public Analyst at Pune on 20.10.1992. The Public Analyst at Pune gave its report Exhibit 31. According to the said report, the sample of Tea was having Iron Filling PPM. 11. Thereafter, consent Exhibit 39 was given by the Joint Commissioner (Nagpur Division), Food & Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State, Nagpur and the present applicant was prosecuted on the complaint presented by Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. K.R. Deshpande for the non-applicant/State submits that no fault can be attributed to the Local Health Authority at Wardha in sending another samples for analysis in view of provision of Sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the said Act. She submits that once the said right was exercised by the Local Health Authority and upon that when the Public Analyst at Pune gave report Exhibit 31, which clearly shows that sample of Tea was found to be having foreign material namely Iron Filling. She also submits that this particular aspect was correctly evaluated by the Appellate Court. Therefore, she submits that there is no merit in the present criminal revision application and the same be dismissed. 13. She also submits that this particular aspect was correctly evaluated by the Appellate Court. Therefore, she submits that there is no merit in the present criminal revision application and the same be dismissed. 13. Undisputedly, samples were sent to two different Public Analysts; (i) at Nagpur, and another at Pune. Report Exhibit 36 of the Public Analyst at Nagpur shows that sample at serial No.2324 concerning about the present applicant is clean sample, whereas report Exhibit 31 of the Public Analyst at Pune is having Iron Filling. 14. Report Exhibit 36 of the Public Analyst at Nagpur is dated 17.9.1992. The said report shows that samples were received on 10.8.1992 by the office of the Public Analyst at Nagpur from the Food Inspector at Wardha. Report Exhibit 31 of the Public Analyst at Pune is dated 19.11.1992. The said report shows that sample at serial No.2324 was received by the office of the Public Analyst at Pune from the Assistant Commissioner, Local Health Authority at Wardha. 15. The evidence of PW2 the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration at Wardha Shri Baban Baburaoji Gayki shows that he received the report of the Public Analyst at Nagpur on 19.9.1992. According to his evidence, the report of the Public Analyst at Nagpur shows that Tea powder was genuine and reported to have standard and, therefore, he decided to send another sealed packet to another Public Analyst for reanalysis and it was sent by him on 22.9.1992. 16. Sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the said Act, reads as under: “Section 13. Report of Public Analyst. – [(1) The Public Analyst shall deliver,......... …..... (2E). 16. Sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the said Act, reads as under: “Section 13. Report of Public Analyst. – [(1) The Public Analyst shall deliver,......... …..... (2E). If, after considering the report, if any, of the Food Inspector or otherwise, the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority shall forward one of the parts of the sample kept by it to any other public analyst for analysis and if the report of the result of the analysis of that part of the sample by that other public analyst is to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (2D) shall, so far as may be, apply.]” From the said provision, it is clear that the power is vested with the Local (Health) Authority to send other part of samples to any other Public Analyst for analysis. 17. Aforesaid provision of Sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the said Act opens with, if, after considering the report, if any, of the Food Inspector or otherwise, the Local (Health) Authority is of the opinion that the report delivered by the public analyst under sub-section (1) is erroneous, the said Authority can send the sample for reanalysis to any other public analyst. 18. Thus, for exercising powers under Sub-section (2E) of Section 13 of the said Act, firstly there should be a report of a Public Analyst given under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act and it should be before the Authority. Once that report is before the Local Health Authority and if the Authority is of the opinion that the report is erroneous, the said Authority can send the other sample for reanalysis. 19. In the present case, report Exhibit 36 of the Public Analyst at Nagpur was before PW2 the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration at Wardha Shri Baban Baburaoji Gayki on 19.9.1992. According to the evidence of Shri Baban Gayki, he decided to send report of the Public Analyst at Nagpur for showing Tea power is upto standard and genuine. Shri Baban Gayki is totally silent in his evidence that after perusing report Exhibit 36 of the Public Analyst at Nagpur, it was his opinion that the said report is erroneous. 20. According to the evidence of Shri Baban Gayki, he decided to send report of the Public Analyst at Nagpur for showing Tea power is upto standard and genuine. Shri Baban Gayki is totally silent in his evidence that after perusing report Exhibit 36 of the Public Analyst at Nagpur, it was his opinion that the said report is erroneous. 20. Further, merely stating from the witness-box that, according to the Local Health Authority, the report is erroneous is his opinion, is not sufficient. There should be a contemporaneous document duly recorded by such a Local Health Authority pointing out reasons as to why he is forming an opinion that the report of a Public Analyst, which he had received under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act, is erroneous one. The powers given to the Local Health Authority, in my view, are not unfettered powers. However, for exercising the said powers, firstly it is obligatory on the part of a Local Health Authority to record a reason as to why he is noticing the report is erroneous. In the present case, nothing such has happened. 21. Further, the evidence of PW1 Food Inspector Shri Sudam Nandanwar shows that he did not receive any letter from the Local Health Authority at Wardha to show that the report of the Public Analyst at Nagpur was erroneous. He also admitted in his evidence that the Public Analyst at Pune was also not made available of the report from the Public Analyst at Nagpur. I am of the view that the Local Health Authority at Wardha has committed a mistake in sending the other sample for reanalysis to the Public Analyst at Pune. 22. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that two different Public Analysts’ reports are available on record, one absolves the present applicant and another points out adulteration. However, the procedure for sending the sample to another Public Analyst, was not followed. Therefore, the present criminal revision application is required to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The criminal revision application is allowed. However, the procedure for sending the sample to another Public Analyst, was not followed. Therefore, the present criminal revision application is required to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The criminal revision application is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class at Wardha on 17.9.1999 in Regular Criminal Case No.210 of 1993 together with judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge at Wardha on 10.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1999 are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(1)(a) (ii) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. (iv) The Bail Bonds of the applicant stand cancelled.