Jagjit Singh, J.
(1) In a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Bhagwan Dass, son of Chuni La), was acquitted on October 29, 1969. Against the acquittal order the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, with special leave, filed th's appeal.
(2) The relevant facts of the case are that on April 9, 1969 Bhagwan Dass was selling curd of cow's milk at shop No. 4219, Jogiwara (Delhi). Food Inspector Soaan Lal Mehra went to the shop, at 8.35 a.m , and purchased 600 grams of curd for puroses of analysis. On one of the parts of the sample curd being analysed by the Public analyst it was reported to be adulterated. The result of the analysis was that fat was 2.21% and non-fatty solids were 11.31% and thus ther; was ''1 22 de- ficiency in fatpercentage which is equivalent to 34.8 percentage deficiency in fat'.
(3) During the trial of the complaint against Bhagwan Dass he applied, under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, to the trial court that the part of the sample which had been retained by the Food Inspector should be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. That part of the sample with the Food Inspector was accordingly sent by the trial Court to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. It could not be ana- lysed as a portion of the contents of the sample was found to have leaked out and the remainder was considered by the Director to be 'unrepresentative'.
(4) On getting the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory, regarding a portion of the contents of the sampla having leaked out the trial court directed the accused to produce that part of the sample which had been given to him. The accused, however, expressed his inability to do so as he had got the part of the sample given to him analysed from a private analyst.
(5) After holding that the accused has been denied the valuable right under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act the learned trial Magistrate acquitted him.
(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant but do not find any adequate grounds for interfering with the order of acquittal. Under rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, stoppers in bottles, jars or other containers in which samples are packed are required to be securely fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. If the stopper in the sample-bottle retained by the Food Inspector had been securely fastened then there would have been no leakage from the bottle during transit. Obviously the stopper had not been securely fastened and it was, thereforee, due to the conduct of the prosecution that the accused was denied the valuable right conferred on him by section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act to have thhe sample retained by the Food Inspector to be analysed by the Director of the Central Laboratory. In M. C. D. v. Chisa Ram : 1967CriLJ939 it was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in a case where there is denial of the right conferred by section 13(2) on account of the conduct of the prosecution the conviction cannot be maintained. A reference may also be made to a Bench decision of this Court in M.C.D. v. Devaki Nandan (Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1969, ' decided on 1012.1969) where under similar' circumstances this Court had refused to interfere with an order of acquittal. Appeal dismissed.