STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Cr.A.No. 30/83 the following point, namely, whether the report of the public Analyst is admissible as substantive evidence to prove the fact that the specimen seal tallied with the seals affixed on the sample, has been referred to the Full Bench. In FOOD INSPECTOR v V.V. GANGADHARAN 1983(2) Kar.LJ. 142. It is held that the report of the public Analyst is substantive evidence in the case and the recital in the certificate that the specimen seal tallied with the seals affixed on the bottles is admissible in proof of the fact. In STATE OF KARNATAKA v DOLPHY ALBUQUERQUE 1983(2) KAR.LJ. 481, it is held that it is obligatory for the prosecution to prove that the seal on the container and the outer cover of the sample sent to the Analyst were compared with the specimen sent separately and that the condition of the seals thereon was noted and what is stated in the report of the Analyst about the comparison of the seals cannot be read as substantive evidence. The same view was taken in FOOD INSPECTOR v A.G. SUVARNA 1985 (1) Kar LJ.l: ILR 1984(2) RAR.752. In view of the said conflicting decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, the said point has been referred to the Full Bench. As the same point is involved in Cr. A.No. 322/86 the said appeal also has been referred to the Full Bench without formulating the point for decision.

(2.) The learned State Public Prosecutor and Mr.R.G.Devadhar, counsel for the appellant in Cr. A. 322/86 supported the view taken in GANGADHARAN'S case referred to above. Mr. TJ.Chouta and Mr. V.V. Upadhyaya learned Advocates for the respondents- accused in Cr. A.No. 30/86 supported the view taken in SUVARNA'S case.

(3.) To determine the said point, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Sub-sections(l) and (5) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act') which are relevant for our purpose, read thus: "13(1). The public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis; (5) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may be used as 1985(1) Kar LJ. 1 : ILR 1984(2) Kar. 752, dissented;