https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74549 Omission in a Section 13(2) notice to specify the court where prosecution was pending was treated as a denial of the accused's statutory right to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Because the notice left the accused uncertain about where to apply, the defect was not treated as a mere technical lapse when it affected the right to challenge the Public Analyst's report. Delay in launching the prosecution further increased the prejudice. The prosecution was held vitiated, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74549 Omission in a Section 13(2) notice to specify the court where prosecution was pending was treated as a denial of the accused's statutory right to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Because the notice left the accused uncertain about where to apply, the defect was not treated as a mere technical lapse when it affected the right to challenge the Public Analyst's report. Delay in launching the prosecution further increased the prejudice. The prosecution was held vitiated, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74549