Second testing of food samples allowed under writ jurisdiction where the statute does not bar re-testing.

Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were construed to permit second testing of a deposited sample by a Central Food Laboratory, as Section 12 was treated as not barring such re-testing and as operating in favour of the purchaser. The earlier decision allowing second testing of deposited samples was noted as neither overruled nor doubted. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be used to direct re-testing. The petitioner was therefore entitled to have the samples re-tested, and the respondents were directed to forward the samples to the Central Food Laboratory and act on the report according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for re-testing of the samples by a Central Food Laboratory and consequential relief in the writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier decision permitting second testing of deposited samples had not been overruled or doubted. It further held that Sections 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act enable second testing of a sample, particularly because Section 12 is expressed in terms that do not prevent such testing and operates in favour of the purchaser. The Court also held that the power under Article 226 could be invoked to direct such re-testing.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to second testing of the samples, and the respondents were directed to send the samples to a Central Food Laboratory and proceed according to law on receipt of the report.

---