AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 20.2.2018 passed by the lower Appellate Court whereby
application of the petitioner under Section 391, 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed be set aside.
Briefly stated, Food Inspector on 28.3.1992 purchased milk from the petitioner. To draw samples, portion of milk was divided into three parts and
same was put into empty dry bottles for purposes of sample and one sample was sent for examination to the Public Analyst, Ajmer, which gave report
against the petitioner. On 6.8.1992, during course of the trial, petitioner filed an application under Section 13(2) of PC Act praying that sample be sent
to the Central Laboratory at the instance of petitioner. It is averred in the present petition that expenses were deposited by the petitioner on 4.6.1998,
but sample was not received in the court from the Food Inspector till 16.9.2013. It is stated that the petitioner filed an application on 18.6.1993 before
trial court raising objection that sample by efflux of time has decomposed.
Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Director, Central Food Laboratory on 28.8.2013
submitted a report that sample was not as per standards prescribed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Director, Central Food
Laboratory was required to be cross-examined regarding validity of the report, as it is stated in the report that sample was fit for examination for
analysis.
Admittedly, the report was given by the Director, Central Food Laboratory on 28.8.2013. The conviction of the petitioner was recorded on 5.8.2017.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before delivery of the judgment, an application was filed that Director, Central Food
Laboratory be called but said application was dismissed on 13.6.2017 before delivery of judgment on 5.8.2017. The said order was not challenged.
The petitioner was convicted by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Ajmer vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2017. Aggrieved
against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal.
The petitioner ground in the grounds of appeal that since life of sample had expired and adequate opportunity had not been given to the petitioner to
assail the order whereby application of the petitioner to call Director, Central Food Laboratory was declined, therefore, Director, Central Food
Laboratory be examined under Section 391 Cr.P.C. by affording opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional evidence in appeal.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Director, Central Food Laboratory cannot be called for cross-
examination as what is shelf life of the sample is well documented in the treatise on the subject and it has also been dealt with by the courts and
enough case law is also available on the above issue. It has been adequately dealt in the treatise and case law on the subject as to how long sample
drawn shall remain fit for analysis and examination. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments
available in his arsenal before the lower Appellate Court by referring to the treatise of case law on the subject before lower Appellate Court at
appropriate stage.