GUT PARSHAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 52 and 53 of 1969.

(2.) The petitioner was standing separate trials under section7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act when he made applications with the prayer that the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta may be summoned as a defence witness for being examined in court. The material part of the application is :-

(3.) At the very outset I must observe that no correspondence, which is placed on judicial record, can be termed as private correspondence. The application did not allege that after the remittance for examination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the sample had been opened on a particular date or that it remained in a particular situation for any approximate period which interfered with and influenced the ultimate analysis which was made after the lapse of any alleged period of time.