JUDGMENT Manish Choudhury, J. - This criminal revision petition (suo-moto) is directed in connection with the judgment and order dated 05.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Jorhat in Criminal Appeal no. 35/2003. By the said judgment and order dated 05.12.2003, the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jorhat as the appellate court has set aside the judgment and order dated 07.05.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 147/1998. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by the said judgment and order dated 07.05.2003 had found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("the Act," in short) and sentenced the respondent being a body corporate, to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, can be narrated as follows : On 19.03.1998, at about 02-45 p.m., P.W.1, a Senior Food Inspector, Headquarter Jorhat along with one of his colleagues, P.W.2, also a Food Inspector, visited Naginijan Tea Estate for the purpose of inspection of food items which were stocked and meant to be distributed and sold to the garden labourers of the said tea estate at subsidized rates. When he went to the godown of Naginijan Tea Estate for that purpose, he met one Mr. Nurul Hussain (hereinafter also referred to as the accused no. 1, for easy reference) who was the Godown In-Charge of Naginijan Tea Estate. P.W.1 expressed his desire to inspect the food items kept inside the godown for the purpose of selling to the garden labourers. P.W.1 was led to the godown by the accused no. 1, Mr. Nurul Hussain and on inspection, he found some food items including rice, which were kept stacked therein and meant for selling to garden labourers at subsidized rates. Suspecting the quality of the rice to be adulterated, P.W.1 stated to have complied all the requisite formalities for the purpose of collection of sample and stated to have collected 750 gms of rice from the accused no. 1, Mr. Nurul Hussain and in presence of P.W.2 on payment of its price at the subsidized rate, amounting to 40 paise. When 3 (three) other persons found present there, declined to become witnesses, the said 750 gms of rice was taken out by opening a stitched rice bag in presence of P.W.2. and the accused no. 1. 1, Mr. Nurul Hussain and in presence of P.W.2 on payment of its price at the subsidized rate, amounting to 40 paise. When 3 (three) other persons found present there, declined to become witnesses, the said 750 gms of rice was taken out by opening a stitched rice bag in presence of P.W.2. and the accused no. 1. Thereafter, P.W.1 stated to have divided said 750 gms of rice into 3 (three) equal parts and put the same in 3 (three) polythene bags which were immediately sealed tightly. All the 3 (three) polythene bags were then put in 3 (three) different polythene containers and thereafter, lids of those containers were sealed. On 20.03.1998, one part of the sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Assam, Guwahati with an intimation to the Local (Health) Authority, Jorhat. The Public Analyst received the said sample on 23.03.1998 and after analysis of the sample, submitted his Analysis Report on 24.04.1998 (Ext.-15). The Public Analyst had opined that the sample of rice did not conform to the standards. 3. P.W.1 on 05.06.1998 requested to the Local (Health) Authority, Jorhat for written consent under Section 20(1) of the Act for launching prosecution against the accused no. 1, Mr. Nurul Hussain, Vendor, Godown In-Charge of Ration Godown, Naginijan Tea Estate and Sri Monoj Kumar Gohain, Manager, Naginijan Tea Estate (hereinafter also referred as the accused no. 2, for easy reference), on the ground that the offences under Section 7 and Section 16 of the Act had been committed by them by storing adulterated rice on 19.03.1998 for the purpose of selling within the meaning of sub-clause (a) and (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 ("the Rules", in short), and Item A. 18.06 of the Appendix B of the said Rules. The written consent to proceed against the above named 2 (two) accused persons was accorded by the Local (Health) Authority on 12.06.1998 vide Ext.-17. The written consent to proceed against the above named 2 (two) accused persons was accorded by the Local (Health) Authority on 12.06.1998 vide Ext.-17. On 25.06.1998, the Local (Health) Authority, Jorhat sent a copy of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst, Assam (Ext.-15) to the above named 2 (two) accused persons in compliance of the mandate contained in Section 13(2) of the Act by informing that the prosecution had been instituted against both of them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat and if they desire, they could make an application to the said Court within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the said communication to get the parts of the article of food kept by it to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad. 4. On receipt of summons from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, both the abovenamed accused persons entered appearance and when the particulars of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act of which they were made accused, were stated to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. When on 09.11.1998, the trial of C.R. Case No. 147/1998 commenced with the examination of P.W.1, the learned trial Court had found from the record that the accused persons purchased the allegedly adulterated food item (rice) from the respondent with a written warranty. Finding as such, the trial court felt it necessary, in view of the provision contained in Section 20A of the Act, to implead the respondent herein, as an accused in the case. Accordingly, the trial court by invocation of Section 20A of the Act, had impleaded the present respondent as accused no. 3 and ordered for issuance of summons to the present-respondent for appearance as the accused no. 3. On receipt of summons from the trial court, the respondent-accused no. 3 appeared before the Court represented by its authorised representatives on 23.12.1998. The particulars of offences under Section 7 and Section 16 were explained to all the accused again on 25.01.1999 to which they pleaded not guilty and accordingly, the trial proceeded. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined 2 (two) witnesses, as indicated above, and exhibited 22 (twenty-two) nos. The particulars of offences under Section 7 and Section 16 were explained to all the accused again on 25.01.1999 to which they pleaded not guilty and accordingly, the trial proceeded. 5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined 2 (two) witnesses, as indicated above, and exhibited 22 (twenty-two) nos. of documents including the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15); Written Consent under Section 20(1) of the Local (Health) Authority for launching prosecution under the Act against accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 (Ext.-17); the Offence Report (Ext.-18); and the communication by which a copy of the Analysis Report was sent to accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 (Ext.-3). It may be pertinent to mention that during the course of the trial, one M/s Maheshwari Floor Mills, Jorhat who was the carrying agent to transport the rice to Naginijan Tea Estate and the Food Corporation of India (FCI), were also impleaded as accused. A total of 3 (three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused persons and 7 (seven) documents were exhibited by the defence in their support. 6. The trial Court after going through the evidence led by the parties, had reached the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act and they were found to be protected under Section 19(2) of the Act. The trial court had also held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against M/s Maheshwari Floor Mills, Jorhat and the FCI under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial court had, however, held that the charge under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Act had been found to be well established against the respondent-accused no. 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, the respondent-accused no. 3 has been convicted and sentenced, as has been indicated above. 7. The trial Court had recorded that on 19.03.1998, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 visited Naginijan Tea Estate with a view to inspect the food items stored in the godown of Naginijan Tea Estate which were kept stored for distributing and selling amongst the garden labourers at subsidized rates. A sample of rice amounting to 750 gms was collected from the accused no. A sample of rice amounting to 750 gms was collected from the accused no. 1 who was the Godown In-Charge of Naginijan Tea Estate. The accused no. 2 was the Manager of Naginijan Tea Estate. Suspecting the quality of rice to be adulterated, P.W.1 was found to have collected the sample of rice from inside the godown. The trial Court had found that P.W.1 had served Form-VI notice on the accused no. 1. When the accused no. 1 informed P.W.1 that rice bags in question were purchased by Naginijan Tea Estate from the respondent-accused no. 3 and to substantiate the said fact, produced one D.O. letter no. JR 890 dated 03.03.1998 (Ext.-2) issued by the respondent-accused no. 3, P.W.1 stated to have prepared another Form-VI notice (Ext.-3) to be served upon the respondent-accused no. 3 in presence of P.W.2. On receipt of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) where the Public Analyst opined that the sample of rice did not conform to the standards, the Written Consent (Ext.-17) was obtained from the Local (Health) Authority, Jorhat i.e. the Joint Director of Health Services, Jorhat on 25.06.1998 to launch prosecution against the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2. Accordingly, the prosecution was launched. It had found that thereafter, the Local (Health) Authority, Jorhat issued the notice (Ext.-20) under Section 13(2) of the Act along with the copies of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.- 15) to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 which were sent by registered post of which Ext.-21 and Ext.-22 were the postal receipts of sending such notices under Section 13(2) of the Act. 8. The trial Court had observed that the rice bags in question were stacked and stored properly on a wooden plank inside the Godown and the sample of rice was taken out by opening a machine stitched bag which did not had any marking. Having perused the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15), the trial Court found that there were damaged grains to the extent of 20.03% which was more than the prescribed limit of 5% as per Item no. A.18.06.04 (rice) under Appendix B to the Rules. The said Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) had been held to be a correct one. It had further been held proved that on 19.03.1998, the accused no. 1 and the accused no. A.18.06.04 (rice) under Appendix B to the Rules. The said Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) had been held to be a correct one. It had further been held proved that on 19.03.1998, the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 had stored adulterated rice bags in the godown of Naginijan Tea Estate for selling to garden labourers. It was on the basis of the Delivery Order (Ext.-2) issued by the respondent-accused no. 3, the trial Court had extended the benefit under Section 19(2) of the Act to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 respectively. It had held that evidently Ext.-2, the Delivery order was in the form of an invoice issued by the respondent. Though Ext.-2 was not in the form of prescribed warranty as per Rule 12A of the Rules but the same could be deemed to be a warranty issued by the respondent-accused no. 3 in view of the proviso to Section 14 of the Act. Finding that Naginijan Tea Estate purchased the rice bags from the respondent-accused no. 3, a distributor of ration articles to the said garden with warranty and the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 had properly stored the same to be proved, the trial Court reached the finding that it was the respondent-accused no. 3 who supplied 80 bags of rice from which the sample was collected by P.W.1 which, later on, on analysis was found have not conforming to the standards laid down under the Act and the Rules, more specifically, Item No. A.18.06.04 (rice). 9. The plea of the respondent-accused no. 3 that the rice bags in question were purchased from the FCI, Jorhat on warranty in the form of Ext.A-Release Order dated 17.02.1998 issued by the FCI, Jorhat which was exhibited through defence witness, D.W.-1, was negated. Vide Ext.-A-Release Order, the FCI was found to have released 3,800 quintals of rice of Grade I (fine/super fine) against payment of Rs. 26,60,000/- to ABITA Zone II. Vide Ext.-B allotment Order, allotment of 385 metric tonnes of rice was found to have been allotted by the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Assam on 28.01.1998 which was taken delivery by the respondent-accused no. 3 from the FCI godown. Out of the same, 80 bags of rice were found to have been delivered by the respondent-accused no. Vide Ext.-B allotment Order, allotment of 385 metric tonnes of rice was found to have been allotted by the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Assam on 28.01.1998 which was taken delivery by the respondent-accused no. 3 from the FCI godown. Out of the same, 80 bags of rice were found to have been delivered by the respondent-accused no. 3 to Naginijan Tea Estate on 06.03.1998 through the transport agent, M/s Maheshwari Floor Mills, Jorhat. It is on the basis on the above evidence on record, the trial Court had gone on to hold that the respondent-accused no. 3 distributed and supplied the adulterated rice in question to Naginijan Tea Estate and the respondent-accused no. 3 being a body corporate, was not entitled to get protection under Section 19(2) of the Act. On the other hand, the transport agent, M/s Maheshwari Floor Mills, Jorhat and the FCI were not found responsible in any act which had led to the adulteration of the rice in question. M/s Maheshwai Floor Mills, Jorhat was found to be a mere carrier of the rice bags. As Form-VI notice was sent to the respondent-accused no. 3 and the respondent-accused no. 3 did not specifically deny the receipt of Form-VI notice, a presumption was drawn by the trial Court that as the Form-VI notice was dispatched through the office peon of P.W.1 to the respondent-accused no. 3, the same was accordingly, served. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present respondent preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jorhat by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2003 had set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court. The appellate Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Jorhat set aside the decision of the trial Court on 3 (three) grounds the sustainability of which are discussed hereunder. 11. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 12. Firstly, the appellate Court has found that the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) had observed that "the sample of rice does not conform to the standard". The Public Analyst while making his opinion did not mention the item incorporated in Appendix B of the Rules in respect of which such opinion had been made. 12. Firstly, the appellate Court has found that the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) had observed that "the sample of rice does not conform to the standard". The Public Analyst while making his opinion did not mention the item incorporated in Appendix B of the Rules in respect of which such opinion had been made. The appellate Court had observed that Item no. A.18.06 of Appendix B is related to food grains exclusive of rice and no standard has been prescribed for rice. But the Public Analyst in his report had held that the rice did not conform to the standard and he made the observation in absence of any prescribed standard. The observation of the appellate Court has been examined by perusal of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15); Request for Written Consent (Ext.-16); the Offence Report (Ext.-18); the Complaint made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat (Ext.-9); and the copy of the notice whereby the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) were sent to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 (Ext.-20). Ext.-15 had clearly mentioned that Analysis Report was made in respect of a sample of rice. Ext.-17 as well as Ext.-18 had only mentioned about taking a sample of rice and it did not make any mention about any other food grains. Item A.18.06 of the Appendix-B of the Rules has been mentioned. Sub-item A.18.06.04 rice is a part of the Item no. A.18.06 of Appendix B where the standard required to be maintained for rice has clearly been laid down. Thus, the finding of the appellate Court on that count is found to be not sustainable. 13. Secondly, the appellate Court has found the letter (Ext.-2) to be not a warranty as per Section 14 of the Act. According to the appellate Court, Ext.-2 did not fulfill the requirements of Section 14 read with Rule 12A of the Rules. Therefore, the Ext.-2 cannot be treated as a warranty. Having regard to the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, on which the trial Court had relied upon to hold that Ext.-2 can be deemed to be a warranty issued by the respondent-accused no. Therefore, the Ext.-2 cannot be treated as a warranty. Having regard to the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, on which the trial Court had relied upon to hold that Ext.-2 can be deemed to be a warranty issued by the respondent-accused no. 3 in terms of substantive part of the said Section, it is clearly evident that the interpretation provided by the trial Court has not been discussed by the appellate Court while holding to the contrary and no reason was assigned by it while disturbing the said finding of the trial Court. The proviso to Section 14 of the Act has provided that bill, cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or distributor of, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or dealer under the Section. On perusal of Ext.-2, it is evident that the respondent-accused no. 3 had transported 80 bags of rice to Naginijan Tea Estate by the said invoice. Thus, interference with the finding of the trial Court on that aspect without any valid reason is found to be unsustainable. 14. Thirdly, the appellate Court has found that P.W.1 stated that he himself went to the office of the respondent-accused no. 3 to serve the notice in Form-VI on the respondent-accused no. 3. But in his examination, P.W.1 stated that he sent the notice in Form-VI to the respondent-accused no. 3 through office peon book. In view of such testimony of P.W.1, the appellate court has found his testimony in relation to service of notice in Form-VI to be contradictory to each other. Documentary evidence was found to be exhibited to prove that the notice in Form-VI was served on the respondent-accused no. 3 by an office peon. Service of notice in Form-VI without any satisfactory evidence as regards actual service, the appellate Court has opined, has deprived the respondent-accused no. 3 to take recourse under Section 13(2) of the Act. 15. Section 11 of the Act has, inter-alia, prescribed the procedure to be followed by a Food Inspector while taking food samples for analysis. Service of notice in Form-VI without any satisfactory evidence as regards actual service, the appellate Court has opined, has deprived the respondent-accused no. 3 to take recourse under Section 13(2) of the Act. 15. Section 11 of the Act has, inter-alia, prescribed the procedure to be followed by a Food Inspector while taking food samples for analysis. When the Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall have to give a notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act. Rule 12 of the Rules has prescribed that when a Food Inspector takes a sample of an article for the purpose of analysis, he shall give notice of his intention to do so in writing in Form-VI, then and there, to the person from whom he takes the sample and simultaneously, by appropriate means, also to be persons, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A of the Act. A specimen copy of such Form-VI has been provided in Appendix A to the Rules. Section 14A requires the vendor to disclose the name, etc., of the person from whom the article of food was purchased. Every vendor of article of food shall, if so required, disclose to the Food Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he purchased the article of food. In the present case, when P.W.1 was in the process of taking the sample of rice from the accused no. 1, Nurul Hussain on 19.03.1998. P.W.1 had served Form-VI notice on the accused no. 1. When the accused no. 1 informed P.W.1 that the rice bags in question were purchased from the respondent-accused no. 3 and produced one D.O. letter dated 03.03.1998 (Ext.-2) issued by the respondent-accused no. 3, P.W.1 prepared another Form-VI notice (Ext.-3) to be served upon the respondent-accused no. 3. P.W.1 had testified that he had served the notice in Form-VI upon the respondent-accused no. 3. 1 informed P.W.1 that the rice bags in question were purchased from the respondent-accused no. 3 and produced one D.O. letter dated 03.03.1998 (Ext.-2) issued by the respondent-accused no. 3, P.W.1 prepared another Form-VI notice (Ext.-3) to be served upon the respondent-accused no. 3. P.W.1 had testified that he had served the notice in Form-VI upon the respondent-accused no. 3. Section 11 further requires that thereafter, the Food Inspector shall have to divide the sample then and there into 3 (three) parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed and thereafter, has to send one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. The Food Inspector has to send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of Section 11 and sub-sections (2A) and (2E) of Section 13. 16. After receipt of the sample, the Public Analyst after completing his analysis shall have to deliver a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Sub-Sections (1), (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 13 of the Act which appear to be relevant, are extracted hereunder :- wxyz "(1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Sub-Sections (1), (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 13 of the Act which appear to be relevant, are extracted hereunder :- wxyz "(1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (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. zyxw wxyz (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 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." zyxw 17. A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act makes it clear that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis from the Public Analyst to the effect that the article of food is adulterated apart from serving such Analysis Report on the persons from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, the Local (Health) Authority is after the institution of the prosecution against those persons, also required to forward a copy of such report to the persons whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 14A, in such manner as may be prescribed, with the further information to such person or persons that if he/they so desire, he/they may make an application to the Court within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 18. The name of the respondent herein have been disclosed to the Food Inspector i.e. P.W.1 by the vendor in terms of Section 14A of the Act. On being made aware about the respondent-accused no. 3 from whom the vendor had purchased the article of food, the Food Inspector, P.W.1 had stated to have served the notice in Form-VI on the respondent-accused no. 3 in terms of sub-clause (a) of Section 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, as the respondent-accused no. On being made aware about the respondent-accused no. 3 from whom the vendor had purchased the article of food, the Food Inspector, P.W.1 had stated to have served the notice in Form-VI on the respondent-accused no. 3 in terms of sub-clause (a) of Section 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, as the respondent-accused no. 3 had been served with the notice in Form-VI, it is obligatory on the part of the Local (Health) Authority after receipt of the report of the result of the analysis from the Public Analyst (Ext.15) to the effect that the article of food was adulterated, to serve a copy of such report of the result of the analysis (Ext.15) to the respondentaccused no. 3 with the further information that the respondent-accused no. 3 if it so desires, it can make an application to the Court within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get one of the samples of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. But in the instant case, the Local (Health) Authority vide Ext.-20 had only sent a copy of the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.-15) in compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act to the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2 only whereby both of them were informed that if they so desire, they may make an application to get one sample of article of food kept by the said authority to be analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to the effect that such notice under Section 13(2) of the Act had ever been served on the respondent-accused no. 3. Thus, it is clearly evident that the respondent-accused no. 3 in the present case had been denied their statutory right to get a sample re-tested by the Central Food Laboratory. The main purpose of Section 13(2) is to give a second opportunity to the accused persons against whom prosecution is initiated under the Act based on the Public Analyst Report, to get the relevant food sample tested again by the Central Food Laboratory. The main purpose of Section 13(2) is to give a second opportunity to the accused persons against whom prosecution is initiated under the Act based on the Public Analyst Report, to get the relevant food sample tested again by the Central Food Laboratory. Since the report of the Central Food Laboratory Report will have precedence over the report of the result of the analysis by the Public Analyst, this is a valuable right statutorily provided to the accused including the accused who has been served with the notice in Form-VI in terms of clause (a) of Section 11(1) of the Act to claim exoneration from the criminal proceeding. 19. In the instant case, it is found that the Local (Health) Authority did not discharge the obligatory and statutory mandate cast upon it and as a result, the present respondent-accused no. 3 had been denied from availing the opportunity w.e.f. 25.06.1998 when the Analysis Report of the Public Analyst (Ext.15) was served on the accused no. 1 and the accused no. 2, to get one of the samples of the article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Thus, in the aforesaid fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that the respondent-accused no. 3 could not have been convicted in the manner as had been convicted by the trial court. As a result, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the appellate Court. Consequently, finding this revision to be devoid of merit, the same is dismissed. No cost. 20. The LCRs are sent to the respective Courts forthwith.