STATE (DELHI ADMN ) Vs. SATINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment dated 1st November, 1993 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) By virtue of the impugned order the learned MM has highlighted the contradictions between the reports of the Public Analyst and the Director, CFL to reach the conclusion that the sample collected by the State was not a representative one. It is pertinent to mention, that while the Public Analyst found extraneous matter to the extent of 6%, the Director, CFL opined that the total extraneous matter was only to the extent of 1.43%. However, both the Public Analyst and the Director, CFL reached a similar conclusion to the extent that the sample contained impermissible colouring matter. In fact, the charge framed by learned MM on 13th February, 1992 exclusively pertained to artificial colouring matter. The charge framed reads as under:

(3.) Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since both the Public Analyst and the CFL had confirmed the presence of artificial colouring in the sample, it would show that there was no contradiction in the findings of Public Analyst and Director, CFL and further the trial court was not correct in reaching the conclusion that the sample so collected was not of a representative character.