The provision shows that the Local (Health) Authority needs to inform to the accused about the report of analysis and within a period of ten days of the receipt of the intimation, the accused is expected to exercise his right for sending the second sample to Central Food Laboratory. The provision shows that the accused needs to file application for exercising the right and he is expected to pay the charges for the same. The provision of section 13 (5) and remaining part ofsection 13 come in to play if accused does not exercise the right given to the accused under
"(5) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under section 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). "
So, if the accused does not exercise the right given under section 13 (2) of the Act, the report of the Public Analyst needs to be used as evidence against the accused.
Bombay High Court
Aravind Shankar Manegaonkar vs The State Of Mah on 5 November, 2014
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Citation; 2015 CRLJ(NOC)482 BOM
Read full judgment here; click here