JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.07.1991 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act) Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1991 (Sughar Singh Vs. State and one another) whereby the Appeal has been dismissed and the judgement and order dated 28.01.1991 passed by the then Second Addl. Munsif Magistrate (Economic Offences), Etawah passed in Criminal Case No. 759 of 1990 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant, Sughar Singh under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred in short as Act) to undergo R.I. for six months, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine one month's S.I. has been confirmed. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: 3. The Chief Food Inspector, B.L. Bharti made an inspection on 22.05.1982 at 9 a.m. at Jawahar Road, Bharthana and found that accused Sughar Singh was selling milk. On suspicion of the milk being adulterated, he gave his introduction to the accused and provided him notice in form No. VI (Exhibit Ka 1) disclosing the purpose of taking sample. The 660 ml. milk was purchased by him from the accused at the rate of rupees 1.75/- and obtained a receipt of it from the accused which is exhibit Ka-2. The said milk was divided in three equal parts by him as per rules. It was filled up in three clean dry bottles, which were sealed. In all these bottles code seals were pasted, which were signed by the C.M.O, Etawah. Three copies of the memorandum were prepared, a copy of which (Exhibit Ka 5) is on record of the file. One bottle out of the said sealed bottles, with memorandum Form No. 7 was sent to Public Analyst by registered post and a copy of the memorandum along with seal impression was also sent by registered post to Public Analyst, receipts of which are Exhibit Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4. After the test/analysis was made by the Public Analyst, report No. V(A)583 dated 12.06.1982 was received according to which, the sample was found 2.2% less in milk fat and 7% deficient in milk solids non-fats, hence the same was found adulterated according to standard prescribed. A copy of the same is Exhibit Ka-6. According to report, the said sample was declared adulterated under section 2(ia)(m) of the Act. A copy of the same is Exhibit Ka-6. According to report, the said sample was declared adulterated under section 2(ia)(m) of the Act. Thereafter, the Food Inspector had given an application for sanctioning prosecution, annexing therewith all the papers connected with these samples which is Exhibit Ka-7. The C.M.O. after having perused papers, gave prosecution sanction against the accused person under section 20 of the Act. Post obtaining sanction, the Food Inspector prepared a complaint and lodged the same through C.M.O. in court which is Exhibit Ka-9. After the filing of complaint, the accused was sent notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on his given address by registered post which is Exhibit Ka-10 and the postal receipts are Exhibit Ka 11 and Exhibit Ka-12. From the side of the prosecution, the Food Inspector, Sri B.L. Bharti was examined as PW-1 and Sri R.S. Yadav was examined as PW 2. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he took the plea of false implication and stated that the witnesses had deposed against him due to enmity but did not lead any evidence in defence. Before the Learned Magistrate, it was argued that the prosecution did not comply with the provisions under Section 13(2) of the Act as the report of the analyst was not sent to the accused appellant. The said argument was over-ruled by the learned magistrate holding that P.W.2 had clearly stated in his statement that the accused appellant had been sent a copy of the Public Analyst Report by registered post. Further it was argued from the side of defence that the sample of the accused was not sent to the Central Food Lab, because of which he deserves to be acquitted but the learned Magistrate disagreed with the said argument because the accused had moved application No. 14-Ka on 23.6.1987 for calling for report from Central Food Lab while the sample was taken on 22.5.1982. The accused had already appeared before Court on 19.10.1983, therefore, it was held that his not moving an application between 1983 to 1987 was sufficient to indicate that he did not want to get the sample tested by Central Food Lab. He did not move an application in this regard by appearing before court. The accused had already appeared before Court on 19.10.1983, therefore, it was held that his not moving an application between 1983 to 1987 was sufficient to indicate that he did not want to get the sample tested by Central Food Lab. He did not move an application in this regard by appearing before court. The application dated 23.7.1987 given by him was moved after much delay, upon consideration of which the court ordered that the accused shall deposit Rs. 40 through 'challan' within 7 days failing which his application would be treated as rejected. Despite that the accused did not deposit the said amount and as a result of that no further action could be taken in that regard. In these circumstances, the court held that no prejudice would be taken to have been caused to the accused under section 13 (2) of the Act. 4. Further it was argued before learned Magistrate that the accused appellant could not be held responsible for the sale of adulterated milk because he was selling the same as servant of co-accused Shri Ram. The learned Magistrate in this regard expressed opinion that the accused appellant Sughar Singh had himself denied at subsequent stage of the trial that he was selling the milk of Shri Ram as a servant, therefore, it could not be held that Sughar Singh was servant of Shri Ram, consequently, he could not avail of any advantage in this regard. The learned Magistrate after having made thorough consideration of the evidence on record had held the accused appellant guilty of the Section 7/16 of the Act and punished him with 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month additional simple imprisonment. 5. Before the learned appellate court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the defence that the accused appellant was selling milk on behalf of co-accused Shri Ram who had been acquitted, therefore, the accused was not liable to be held guilty who was selling milk as an agent of accused Shri Ram. 5. Before the learned appellate court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the defence that the accused appellant was selling milk on behalf of co-accused Shri Ram who had been acquitted, therefore, the accused was not liable to be held guilty who was selling milk as an agent of accused Shri Ram. The learned appellate court has recorded that it was correct that the accused appellant made an endorsement on form VI (Exhibit Ka-1) and receipt (Exbhibit Ka-2) that he brought mixed milk of cow and she-goat for sale, the owner of which was Shri Ram, but in his statement during trial, co-accused Shri Ram denied the fact that accused Sughar Singh was selling milk on his behalf. Accused Sughar Singh had not led any evidence to the effect that co-accused Shri Ram was the owner of the milk, therefore, in absence of any such evidence on record, no inference could be drawn that Sughar Singh was selling milk on behalf of Shri Ram. There was no evidence on record except the endorsement of accused Sughar Singh in this respect, on notice Form VI (Exhibit Ka 1) and on receipt (Exhibit Ka 2), therefore learned appellate court held that it could not be found proved that the accused Sughar Singh was selling milk on behalf of Shri Ram. 6. The next argument made before learned appellate court was that compliance of section 10(7) of the Act was not made. In this regard, the learned appellate court held that the Chief Food Inspector had made endorsement on notice (Form VI) itself that nobody was ready to sign the notice and receipt. Besides that accused Sughar Singh had himself written that he had received notice and was selling milk on behalf of Shri Ram, therefore, the appellate court held that there was proper compliance of the provisions of section 10(7) of the Act. 7. The next contention before the appellate court was that no compliance of rule 17 and 18 of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955 was made which was mandatory. In this regard the learned appellate court has held that postal receipts (Exhibit Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4) and a copy of memorandum (Form VII) had been filed from the side of the prosecution. 7. The next contention before the appellate court was that no compliance of rule 17 and 18 of the P.F.A. Rules, 1955 was made which was mandatory. In this regard the learned appellate court has held that postal receipts (Exhibit Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4) and a copy of memorandum (Form VII) had been filed from the side of the prosecution. The sample was taken on 22.5.1982 and the same was sent to Public Analyst, Varanasi on 24.5.1982, thus there was full compliance made of the mandatory Rules 17 and 18 of the P.F.A. Rules of 1955. 8. The next argument made by learned counsel for the accused before the appellate court was that compliance of section 13 (2) of the Act was not made by the prosecution. In this regard it was argued before appellate court that accused had applied for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta which was allowed by court order dated 23.7.1987 but his application was later on rejected due to non-depositing of requisite fees of Rs 40/-. The learned appellate court has mentioned in this regard that for proving compliance of section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution had filed a letter (Exhibit Ka 10) dated 2.7.1983 and postal receipts (Exhibit Ka 11 and Exhibit Ka 12) dated 2.7.1983 which sufficiently prove that notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was sent one day after the prosecution was launched on 1.7.1983. So it could not be held that there was no compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. It is further mentioned by the appellate court that prosecution examined R.S. Yadav as P.W. 2 to prove the fact that copy of the report of public analyst was sent to the accused within time. 9. Learned Counsel for the defence also raised objection that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint by the prosecution. The sample was taken on 22.5.1982 and the complaint was lodged on 1.7.1983 which is about one year after taking the sample. Hence, the appellate court held that no inference could be drawn that there was inordinate delay in lodging the prosecution because it is deemed that milk remains fit for about 10 to 12 months. The accused had appeared in court on 19.10.1983. No application was moved by him until 23.7.1987 for sending the sample to Central Food Lab, Calcutta. Hence, the appellate court held that no inference could be drawn that there was inordinate delay in lodging the prosecution because it is deemed that milk remains fit for about 10 to 12 months. The accused had appeared in court on 19.10.1983. No application was moved by him until 23.7.1987 for sending the sample to Central Food Lab, Calcutta. The application of the accused for sending the sample was allowed by the court, therefore, the accused could not take plea that his right under Section 13(2) of the Act had been taken away due to non compliance of the provision of section 13(2) of the Act or by filing complaint with inordinate delay. His application was rejected for non depositing of fee for analysis. In this respect it was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that he was not liable to pay any fee according to U. P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1976 which provides as follows: "12. Expenses in connection with collection and dispatch of food samples.- All expenses incurred in connection with the collection and dispatch of food samples for analysis and in the prosecution of persons under the Act or rules framed thereunder shall be met by the local authority within whose jurisdiction the sample of food is collected by its Food Inspector or the offence is committed. Where no such local authority exists, such expenses shall be met by the State Government." 10. The learned appellate court held that Rule 12 provides for only the provision for expenses of collection and dispatch of food sample for analysis in prosecution of the persons. There was no mention made for payment of fees. Besides that accused had not made any protest against the order of the court that he was not liable to pay such expenses, therefore, in his opinion the right of the accused was not infringed because he himself had not taken prosecution in sending sample to the Central Food Lab Calcutta with in prescribed time. Thus, after having made detailed discussion, the appellate court has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order of the Magistrate's court has been upheld. 11. Before this Court, the learned counsel confined his argument mainly to the point of non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. Thus, after having made detailed discussion, the appellate court has come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the order of the Magistrate's court has been upheld. 11. Before this Court, the learned counsel confined his argument mainly to the point of non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. Simultaneously its violation was also argued because under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules quoted above nowhere provision was made for accused to bear the expenses of Rs 40/- to be deposited for getting his sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory for being tested. According to the said provision, the said expenses need to be borne by the local authority within whose jurisdiction the sample of the food was collected and in case no such authority exits, by the State Government. Citing this provision, it was argued that this has resulted in causing prejudice to the accused as he was deprived of his valuable right to get his sample examined from the Central Food Lab and hence on this ground he should be acquitted. 12. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon Ramesh Chandra vs State 2014 (11) ADJ (NOC) 32 in which non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Act was set up as defence but the same did not find favour with the Court due to moving an application for retesting after delay of seven and a half years which could not be explained by the defence. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: "21. Now come to the second question regarding non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Act, 1954. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement is reproduced herein below: "21. Now come to the second question regarding non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Act, 1954. It reads as under: "Section 13(2)-On receipt of the report 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 14-A, 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 or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of report of the copy of report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." 22. The further procedure in this regard is contained in Rule 9-B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1955"). The further procedure in this regard is contained in Rule 9-B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1955"). It reads as under: "9-B. Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned.--The Local (Health) Authority shall within a period of ten days after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form II delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars has been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act: Provided that where the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, and no prosecution is intended under sub-section (2) or no action is intended under sub-section (2-E) of Section 13 of the Act, the Local (Health) Authority shall intimate the result to the vendor from whom the sample has been taken and also to the person, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14-A of the Act, within 10 days from the receipt of the report from the public analyst." 23. It contemplates sending of copy of analysis report after institution of prosecution against the person from whom article or food was taken, informing him that if so desired he may make an application to the Court for getting the sample of article or food kept with Food Inspector, i.e., Local (Health) Authority, to be analyzed by by Central Food Laboratory. This request can be made by the person facing prosecution within 10 days from the date of receipt of report. 24. In the present case, complaint was filed in Trial Court on 29.03.1981 and report dated 12.12.1980 was forwarded to revisionist by registered post on 02.05.1981. the receipt of registry is exhibit before courts below. The address mentioned in registered receipt was the same which was mentioned on Form No. 6 (Exhibit Ka-1) and payment receipt (Exhibit Ka-2), which were duly signed by revisionist. This is evident from the judgment of Lower Appellate Court. The address mentioned by applicant in his various applications, i.e., resident of Village Nasirabad was the same which was mentioned in registry receipt, whereby report was forwarded to revisionist. This is evident from the judgment of Lower Appellate Court. The address mentioned by applicant in his various applications, i.e., resident of Village Nasirabad was the same which was mentioned in registry receipt, whereby report was forwarded to revisionist. This finding of Lower Appellate Court has not been challenged. 25. The revisionist, therefore, could not prove by any cogent evidence that the registered document was not received by him. He moved application for re-testing after about seven and half years. Under the statute he was required to seek retesting within 10 days from the date of receipt of report. No reason for extraordinary delay of seven and half years could be explained. 26. In view of above discussion, it is difficult to accept the contention of counsel for revisionist that there is non-compliance of Section 13(2) of Act, 1954." 13. For the sake of convenience the relevant provisions of Section 13 of the Act are reproduced here in below: "(2) On receipt of the report 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 persons 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 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. (2A ) When an application is made to the Court under sub-section (2) , the Court 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 such requisition (2B) on receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2A), 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 the signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, is not tampered with and dispatch 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 . * * * (3) The certificate issued by Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2 - B) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1)" 14. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1955 relates to the analysis of food samples. The relevant portion of the said Rule is extracted herein below: "(4) Analysis of food samples. - (1) (a) Samples of food for analysis under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act shall be sent either through messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet, enclosed together with the memorandum in Form I in an outer cover addressed to the Director. * * * (5) After test or analysis, the certificate thereof shall be supplied forthwith to the sender in Form II. (6) The fees payable in respect of such a certificate shall be Rs. 1000 per sample of food analysed." 15. Clause (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules as it originally stood prescribed fee of Rs. 40. The Rule was amended twice, first with effect from 24/8/1995 substituting the figure of Rs. 200 for Rs. 40 and again with effect from 20/5/1999 substituting the figure of Rs. 1000 for Rs. 200. 1000 per sample of food analysed." 15. Clause (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules as it originally stood prescribed fee of Rs. 40. The Rule was amended twice, first with effect from 24/8/1995 substituting the figure of Rs. 200 for Rs. 40 and again with effect from 20/5/1999 substituting the figure of Rs. 1000 for Rs. 200. In the case at hand since the occurrence was of 22/5/1982, the prescribed fee was Rs. 40/-. 16. It would be pertinent to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs Saileshbhai Mansukhilal Shah and Another, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 71, in which the Supreme Court considered the question "where the accused, not being satisfied with correctness/accuracy of the report of the Public Analyst, exercises his right under section 13 (2) of the Act to have a second part of the samples analysed by Central Food Laboratory, whether he is bound to pay the fee prescribed under Rule 4 (6) of the Rules?". The said question has been dealt with extensively in this case and it would be appropriate to quote the relevant paragraphs herein below for the sake of convenience and to facilitate arriving on the right conclusion in the present case: "5 . When a food inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, section 11 requires him to divide the sample into three parts and send one part of the sample to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority. Section 13 (1) requires the public analyst to deliver a report of the result of the analysis of the said food sample to the Local (Health) Authority. Sub-section (2) of section 13 confers a valuable right on the accused to have another part of the sample of food analysed by Central Food Laboratory, for a second opinion. Sub-sections (2), (2 - A), (2 - B) and (3) of section 13 are relevant which are extracted below: (these have already been reproduced above) ................................................................................................. 8 . Sub-section (2) of section 13 confers a valuable right on the accused to have another part of the sample of food analysed by Central Food Laboratory, for a second opinion. Sub-sections (2), (2 - A), (2 - B) and (3) of section 13 are relevant which are extracted below: (these have already been reproduced above) ................................................................................................. 8 . The procedure for getting a second analysis of the Central Food Laboratory, as laid down in sub-section (2), (2 - A) and (2 - B) of section 13 can be summarised thus: (i) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis from the Public Analyst, the Local (Health) Authority is required to forward a copy of the result of the analysis by Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample of article of food was taken (as also the vendor, if any, from whom such person purchased the article of food). (ii) While so forwarding the report, the Local (Health) Authority is also required to inform the said persons (the accused) that if they so desire, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the report, to get the second portion of the sample kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. (iii) When an application is made by such persons (the accused), the Court shall require the Local (Health) Authority to forward the parts of the sample kept by it; and the Local (Health) Authority shall forward the parts of the sample to the Court within five days from the date of receipt of requisition from the Court. (iv) On the receipt of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority, the Court shall dispatch one part of the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. (v) The Central Food Laboratory has to analyse the sample and send a report (certificate ) in respect of the result of the analysis of such sample to the Court . 9 . Section 13 does not require payment of any fee to the Central Food Laboratory for the second analysis. Nor does it say that the complainant/ state or Local (Health) Authority should bear the cost of second analysis. 9 . Section 13 does not require payment of any fee to the Central Food Laboratory for the second analysis. Nor does it say that the complainant/ state or Local (Health) Authority should bear the cost of second analysis. Nor does it say that when an accused makes an application for a second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, such analysis shall be done free of cost. In fact section 13 does not deal with the fee part. Other provisions deal with the fee to be paid. Section 4 requires the Central Government to establish one or more Central Food Laboratories (or specify any Laboratory or Institution as a Central Food Laboratory) to carry out the functions entrusted to the Central Food Laboratory by the Act or the Rules made under the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 4 empowers the Central Government to make Rules prescribing the procedure for submission of samples for analysis/tests to the Central Food Laboratory, the forms of laboratory's reports and the fees payable in respect of such reports. Rule 4 (6) of the Rules provides that a fee of rupees 200 (now Rs. 1000) should be paid to the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate under section 13 (2) of the Act. Form I of Appendix A to the Rules makes it clear that when the Court sends a requisition to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis of the sample under section 13 (2) of the Act, the Court is required to enclose a demand draft for the amount of fee for analysis. Section 13 (2) when read with section 4 (2) (b) and Rule 4, makes it clear that the analysis by the Central Food Laboratory is not free of cost, but subject to payment of the prescribed fee and that such fee should be paid in advance. The non-mention of fee in section 13 does not mean that the provision for payment of fee under section 4 (2) (b) read with Rule 4 (6) is negated or rendered obsolete. The question is who should bear and pay the prescribed fee? 10 . The payment to the Central Food Laboratory due under Rule 4 (6) has to come from someone. Logically the choices are (a) the complainant (Food Inspector/State); (b) the Local (Health) Authority; (c) the Court; (d) the person who requires the second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. .......................................................................................................... 10 . The payment to the Central Food Laboratory due under Rule 4 (6) has to come from someone. Logically the choices are (a) the complainant (Food Inspector/State); (b) the Local (Health) Authority; (c) the Court; (d) the person who requires the second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. .......................................................................................................... 10.4 In the absence of any specific provision, the cost of analysis has to be borne by the person requesting for such analysis. The accused need not apply to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, as the report of the Public Analyst is already on the file. The accused has been given an option under section 13 (2) to get a second analysis of the sample (that is analysis of second part of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory) only if he so desires. This option will obviously be exercised only when the accused is not satisfied with the report of the public analyst and wants to assail it. As the second analysis by the Central Food Laboratory is at the option of the accused, it necessarily follows that he should bear and pay the fee fixed for such analysis under the Rules, if he wants the second analysis. ........................................................................................................ 12 . On a careful reading of section 13 (2) as it exists now and the old section 13 (2), we are of the view that the old provision is of no assistance to interpret the new provision. If section 13 (2) as it originally stood had been retained, by merely omitting the words "on payment of prescribed fee", with the consequential change in Rule 4 by deleting clause (6) thereof, it might have been possible to take the view that no fee was payable by applicant for second analysis. But that is not the position. Section 13 (2) has undergone a complete change, by substitution in entirety, by sections 13 (2), (2 - A) to (2 - E). Further, the Rule 4 (6) has continued in the statute book. Not only Rule 4 (6) has continued, but it has been consciously amended in 1995 and again in 1998 increasing the fee. There is a clear provision in the Act for payment of fee, when section 4 (2) (b) is read with Rule 4 (6). Further, the Rule 4 (6) has continued in the statute book. Not only Rule 4 (6) has continued, but it has been consciously amended in 1995 and again in 1998 increasing the fee. There is a clear provision in the Act for payment of fee, when section 4 (2) (b) is read with Rule 4 (6). Rule 4 (6) cannot be ignored as obsolete, as has been done by the Kerela High Court, in the absence of clear irreconciliability with section 13 (2) or any other provision of the Act. 13 . When a statutory provision is substituted, the new provision has to be read and construed with reference to its wording and not with reference to the wording of the old provision. Old section 13 (2) and the new sections 13 (2) to (2 - F) are different. Old section 13 (2) enabled the accused as also the complainant to make an application to the Court for sending the second part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Under new section 13 (2), a complainant does not have such right, but on the other hand, the right is given only to the person from whom the sample was taken as also his vendor, if any. Secondly, under the new section an obligation is cast on the Local (Health) Authority to inform the person from whom the sample has been taken (and his vendor, if any) that they can make an application to the Court within 10 days of receipt of the Public Analyst's report, for getting a second part of the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Old section 13 (2) did not contain such a provision. Lastly, the provision that "the accused or the complainant may on payment of the prescribed fee, make an application" in old section 13 (2) meant that payment of the prescribed fee was a condition precedent for making an application to the Court for second analysis. The omission of the words "on payment of the prescribed fee" in new section 13 (2), in context, only means that payment is no longer a condition precedent for making an application for second analysis. Under new section 13 (2), the applicant can make the payment after application is allowed by the Court. The sample however will be sent by the Court to the Central Food Laboratory only on deposit of the described fee. Under new section 13 (2), the applicant can make the payment after application is allowed by the Court. The sample however will be sent by the Court to the Central Food Laboratory only on deposit of the described fee. The omission to refer to the fee in section 13 (2) is obviously because it was provided in Rule 4 (6) made in exercise of power conferred under section 4 (2) (b). If the legislative intent was to exempt the applicant for second analysis from any payment, the section would have stated that such analysis was free. The decision of the Kerela High Court is clearly erroneous. The view of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Madras that the applicant has to pay the fee for the second analysis, in view of Rule 4 (6) providing for such fee and the absence of any provision exempting the applicant from paying the fee, is correct." 17. A close reading of the above judgment of the Supreme Court would make it clear that the controversy is now set at rest as regards payment of fee in respect of sending second sample to the public analyst for being tested. The expenses of the fee prescribed under Rule 4 (6) of the Rules of 1955 have to be borne by the accused who applies for second sample to be sent to be tested according to the procedure prescribed and reproduced above. 18. One more aspect would require to be looked into in the case at hand is, as to whether Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1976 which has been reproduced above and has been cited by the lower appellate Court, would be applicable in the case at hand. 19. For this, the relevant provisions of the Act have to be seen which are being reproduced here for the sake of convenience. 20. Section 24 of the Act provides as follows: - "24. Power of the State Government to make rules. - (1) The State Government may, after consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act in matters not falling within the purview of section 23." 21. Section 23 provides as follows: - "23. Power of the Central Government to make rules. - (1) The State Government may, after consultation with the Committee and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act in matters not falling within the purview of section 23." 21. Section 23 provides as follows: - "23. Power of the Central Government to make rules. - (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Committee and after previous publication by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act. 22. It is apparent that the Central Government has made Rules of 1955 under section (23) quoted above and the State Government has made Rules of 1976 under the above-mentioned section 24 of the Act, which prescribes that the State Government may make Rules regarding matters not falling within the purview of section 23. Rule 4 (6) of the Rules of 1955 providing for fee to be paid for sending of second sample for analysis at the request of accused for second opinion has already been cited above, therefore the State Government may not prescribe any provision in contravention of the said rule of the Central Government. Hence in the opinion of this Court the provision made by the State Government that all the expenses incurred in connection with collection and dispatch of food samples for analysis and in the prosecution of persons under the Act or Rules framed thereunder shall be met by the local authority within whose local jurisdiction the sample of food is collected by its Food Inspector or the offence is committed and that where no such local authority exists, such expenses shall be made by the State Government, may not be read applicable in case of the accused opting for sending second sample to the Central Food Laboratory for being tested for taking second opinion. This provision is made only for sending initial sample (first sample) by the prosecution side for being tested by the Central Food Laboratory and its expenses would be borne as mentioned above by the local authority and in case it does not exist, then the State Government. 23. Now in the light of above position of law and fact, the facts in the present case need to be considered by this Court. 24. 23. Now in the light of above position of law and fact, the facts in the present case need to be considered by this Court. 24. It is apparent from record that P.W. 2 has proved that a copy of public analyst report No. VA-538 (Exhibit Ka 6) dated 12.6.1982 was sent to the accused by registered post on 2.7.1983, after filing of the complaint on 1.7.1983 in Court. Therefore it is evident that Public Analyst's report was sent to the accused appellant on 2.7.1983. According to the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act, the accused ought to have moved an application within 10 days of the date of receipt of Public Analyst's report for getting his sample analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory, while he moved the application on 23.6.1987 on which a direction was given by court for depositing Rs 40/- as fee which was then prescribed under the Rules of 1955, under Rule 4 (6), which was not deposited by him, hence, his application stood rejected. The finding of the learned lower appellate Court is not in accordance with law in this regard that under Rule 12 of the Rules of 1976 made by the State of Uttar Pradesh provided that accused was not supposed to deposit any fee for getting his second sample tested. As held above, the said rule related to fees to be borne by the prosecution in connection with the first sample to be borne by the Local Authority or the State Government if no Local Authority existed. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist in this regard does not hold water that the accused revisionist stood prejudiced by being refused the right to get his second sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory by compelling him to pay Rs. 40/-, which he did not deposit. Besides that the latches on the part of the accused revisionist of not moving application within 10 days as per prescribed time limit, instead moving the same about 5 years after receipt of first analysis report also shows that he could not get benefit of his own fault. 25. There is no other significant argument made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 25. There is no other significant argument made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The other points which could have been raised by him have already been answered by the learned Magistrate's Court as well as the Appellate Court, adequately which have been already mentioned in this judgment above. 26. Now comes the most crucial point of sentence. The Magistrate's Court has imposed punishment of 6 months rigorous imprisonment, fine of rupees 1000 and in default of payment of fine one month's simple imprisonment, which is the minimum prescribed under section 16 of the Act. The learned counsel for the revisionist prayed during the arguments that pursuant to the conviction by the appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 30/7/1991, the revisionist was taken into custody to serve out sentence and was released on bail by the order of High Court dated 5/8/1991. Thereafter pursuant to this Court's order dated 20 9/3/2017 he has been arrested and sent to jail as per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah dated 7/9/2017, therefore till date he has already served more than 4 months term in jail, hence he may be released on the sentence already undergone. This gives rise to the consideration of point as to whether this Court can reduce punishment below the minimum prescribed under law. In this regard the position of law is being considered as follows. 27. In Mithilesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 423, appellant, who was running a small Kirana shop was held guilty for violation of section 2 (i - a) (a) (m) and punished under section 7 read with section 16 (1) of PFA Act for adulteration in red chilli powder with imprisonment for one year, fine of Rs. 3000 and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 3 months by the Magistrate's Court and the said sentence was upheld by the Appellate Court. In revision, the High Court upheld the conviction but the quantum of sentence was reduced to 3 months' RI which is the minimum sentence, giving reasons in para-25 of the judgment that offence related to the year 1993; 12 days incarceration had already been undergone by the petitioner who was 47 years of age; he having rooted himself in society, the ends of Justice would be met with if the sentence was reduced to three months. On request for showing further leniency it was held by the Supreme Court that no further benevolence could be shown to the appellant, more so, when it was a case of food adulteration. There were no special circumstances which could warrant reducing the sentence below the minimum and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 28. In the State of Rajasthan vs Jagdish Prasad, (2009) 12 Supreme Court Cases 646, the Supreme Court did not approbate the commutation of sentence of 6 months' RI to fine. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as follows: "2 . By the impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the conviction for offences punishable under sections 7 and 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short "the Act") imposed a fine of Rs. 6000 and directed that the same is in commutation of the sentence of 6 months' RI as awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. It was directed that the appropriate Government shall formalise the matter by passing an appropriate order under clause (d) of section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") if the amount is deposited within a particular period. For the aforesaid purpose the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in N .Sukumaran Nair vs Food Inspector. 3 . learned counsel for the appellant State admitted that High Court's order is clearly unsustainable. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment. 4 . In Dayal Singh vs State of Rajasthan it was interalia observed as follows: (SCC pp. 728 - 29, para-15) "15 . In the instant case it was not disputed that for the offence charged a minimum sentence of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment is prescribed by law. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment which is the minimum sentence. We are not inclined to modify the sentence by passing an order of the nature passed in N. Sukumaran Nair vs Food Inspector where this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction imposed only a sentence of fine and directed the State to exercise its power under section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. In the instant case the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. In the instant case the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment. Moreover, we are firmly of the view that a strict adherence to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules framed thereunder is essential for safeguarding the interest of consumers of articles of food. Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could get away with mere fine. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed against the appellant." 5. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The sentence , as imposed by the trial Court is restored. However, since the occurrence took place nearly three decades back if the respondent - accused moves the appropriate Government to commute the sentence of imprisonment, the same shall be considered in the proper perspective. For a period of three months the accused need not surrender to undergo sentence during which period it shall be open to him to move the appropriate Government for commutation. If no order in the matter of commutation is passed by appropriate Government the accused shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of sentence." 29. From the above position of interpretation of penal clause under the Act, it is apparent that with special reasons, the sentence awarded to the accused in the case at hand may be reduced only up to three months imprisonment and fine which shall not be less than Rs. 500 and not below that, as has been provided in the Proviso to section 16 of the Act. 30. In the case at hand it is apparent that the occurrence took place on 22/5/1982 i.e. more than three decades back. At the time of statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. he was about 45 years old on 22/10/1990, therefore as on date his age would be approximately 73 years. He has already spent time of over 4 months in jail after having been arrested, out of the awarded sentence of 6 months. The offence discloses that he was found selling adulterated milk which was found to contain 2.2% less fat and 7% less non-fatty solids, as milk fat was found to be 4.4% and the milk solid non-facts were found to be 7.9%. This is an offence of very minor nature. It has not been found injurious to health also. The offence discloses that he was found selling adulterated milk which was found to contain 2.2% less fat and 7% less non-fatty solids, as milk fat was found to be 4.4% and the milk solid non-facts were found to be 7.9%. This is an offence of very minor nature. It has not been found injurious to health also. Therefore looking to the fact that during the period the accused revisionist remained on bail he did not commit any offence and he seems to have rooted well in society approximately 30 years down the line since commission of the offence and has already undergone more than 4 months in jail, the ends of justice would be met if his sentence is reduced to three months rigorous imprisonment but no remission in fine and in default clause. Since the default clause stipulates one month additional simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine of Rs. 1000 only, the said period would also be treated to have been served by him. 31. This revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the revisionist is maintained. His punishment is reduced under the aforesaid sections to three months rigorous imprisonment but fine of Rs. 1000 with default clause is maintained. Since he has already served out the said sentence, he shall be released in this case forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 32. The office is directed to transmit back the record of the lower court forthwith with a copy of judgment and order of this Court for immediate compliance.