AYASHI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference, made by the learned .Additional Sessions Judge, for setting aside an order of the agistrate, refusing to summon the Public Analyst as a defence witness, in a case under sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.).

(2.) A complaint, under sections 7/16 of the Act, was filed, by Shri Ganga Ram Sharma, Assistant Municipal Prosecutor, Municipal Corporation, Delhi, against Ayashi Lal petitioner, alleging that a Food Inspector, Shri H.R. Sood, had, on the 11th April, 1967, purchased a sample of milk, without indication, from the petitioner, who was taking the milk for sale and that the semple was, on analysis by the public Analyst, found to be adulterated.

(3.) After the close of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner put in a list of defence witnesses. The only defence witness named therein was Shri S.Raj, Public Analyst, Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The Magistrate refused to summon the Public Analyst on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst was already on the record and that it would not serve any useful purpose to call him as a witness. The Magistrate, further, observed that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst, it was open to him to make an application under section 13(2) of the Act to get the sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta.