person from whom sample has been taken and / or accused expresses his written intention of getting the sample retested from a Central Laboratory ... analysis of the sample. Therefore, if had become the bounden duty of the complainant to get the sample retested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory
court. Besides expressing his intention to get the sample retested he is not required to do anything further. In the present case ... analysis of the sample. Therefore, if had become the bounden duty of the complainant to get the sample retested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory
provided under Section 13 (2) of the Act for getting the sample retested by the CFL has been infringed, hence no fruitful purpose will ... applicant, He submitted that the trial court without getting the second sample retested by CFL has fixed the cases for evidence
valuable rights of the revisionist of getting the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory is defeated. It is further submitted that the said question ... right under Section 13(2) of the Act for getting the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory. This is a fact which is even
accused-revisionist for exercising his right for getting the sample retested by the Central Food Laboratory. It is further submitted that Section ... thus the valuable right of the accused for getting the sample retested at the Central Food Laboratory gets defeated. Even P.W.1, the Food
Retail Outlet sample will be compared with the supply point sample.
In the present case, as the sample was not made available at the time ... there is no provision for drawing fresh
samples and only the samples earlier drawn can be
retested stands in clear contradiction with the mandate
prayer made by the petitioner in his appeal for retesting of the third sample of fertilizer Mono Zinc-33% in some notified laboratory.
The learned ... cause notice wherein he had specifically made a prayer for retesting of the second sample of the fertilizer in some other notified laboratory. The second
M/S M.K. Fuel Centre vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And 4 ... on 18
Govt. analyst report that the sample is not of standard quality and request you to kindly get the sample retested at your ... complaint could not have been filed earlier and the fourth sample sent for retesting well within time. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
second opinion from the Central Laboratory on the contents of the Jelly sample."
With respect to the second point, we are of the view ... clear that the Appellant lost their chance to get the Jelly sample retested under Section 13(2) on account of the Respondents' negligence.
Finally
