https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190130 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. en-us Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Feb 2017 10:27:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190130 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190130