https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196742 Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 gives the accused a right to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The Director's certificate under Section 13(2-B) supersedes the Public Analyst's report and, under the proviso to Section 13(5), is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it. Once that certificate is on record, the Public Analyst's report stands displaced. An omission to mention particular tests in the certificate does not invalidate it; the omission is treated as indicating absence of the relevant ingredient, not as defeating its evidentiary value. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2022 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196742 Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 gives the accused a right to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The Director's certificate under Section 13(2-B) supersedes the Public Analyst's report and, under the proviso to Section 13(5), is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it. Once that certificate is on record, the Public Analyst's report stands displaced. An omission to mention particular tests in the certificate does not invalidate it; the omission is treated as indicating absence of the relevant ingredient, not as defeating its evidentiary value. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196742