IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.8771 OF 2008 ARUN KUMAR, SON OF LATE INDRA DEV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MANER PARAW, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION MANER, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ******** 3 22/03/2010 This application has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2006 by which the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 16 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act”) in Complaint Case No. 2 (C2) of 2006. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act has been implemented. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was selling adulterated Laddos. It is said that the Laddos were sent to FSL for a report and it was reported by using the manual method that the Laddos were adulterated. By order dated 18.02.2010, the State Counsel was directed to take instructions in the matter. It is said that no instructions have been received by the State Counsel in this matter. Section 13 (2) of the Act requires that “on receipt of the report of the analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the 2 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 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 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.” From the pleadings, it would be clear that the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act were not followed. This Court, therefore, finds that the order taking cognizance is bad as the prosecution has not fulfilled the conditions as mentioned under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 04.04.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 2 (C2) of 2006 pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur is quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)