AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 15.3.1997, whereby the accused in the Criminal Case No. 8352/1993 filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have been acquitted only on the ground that the analysis reports submitted in evidence were not signed on the day they were prepared. The trial Courts followed the orders and judgments of this Court in holding that, if the reports were not prepared and signed by the analyst on the same day when the samples were analyzed, they would cease to have any evidentiary value and, therefore, the accused could not be convicted on the basis of such report.
Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil Patel for the appellant and Mr HL Jani, learned APP for the respondent No. 2 - State. Though served, none appears for respondent No. 1.
At the time of hearing, it has been pointed out by Mr.Patel regarding the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Vishramdas Virumal, wherein the judgments and orders of this Court relied upon by the trial Court were questioned in the reference made to the Division Bench and ultimately the question referred to the Division Bench was answered in the following terms:
A report of the Public Analyst delivered u/s 13(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 declaring on analysis of a sample of food to be ''adulterated'' or ''misbranded'' cannot be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the Court or the accused raising a doubt about the correctness of the report only on the ground that the report is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which sample was analyzed.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant having relied upon the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench that the orders impugned in this appeal is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court to consider this part of the evidence regarding correctness of the report of the Public Analyst. Further, learned advocate for the appellant has also cited the decision in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Uttamchand Hathichand Shah and Ors. reported in 2007(2) GLH 249 in support of his submissions. On the other hand, learned APP Mr Jani also supports the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant.
I have perused the record of the case, the judgment referred to above and having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I am of the considered opinion that correctness of the report of Public Analyst cannot be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the Court or the accused. In this view of the matter, it is apparently clear that the trial Court has committed serious error while passing the impugned order.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In case R & P are received in this Court, the same will be returned to the trial Court forthwith and the trial Court shall proceed with the original criminal cases in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. The District Judge, Navsari is directed to list the Criminal Case No. 8352/1993 before the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari with a direction to dispose of the said criminal case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.