NANDAKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was DW 1 in the C.C. No. 131 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamkulam. He is the Professor of Chemistry in the Kerala Agricultural University and a specialist in Analytical Chemistry and is working in the Nutrition Department. He instructs P. G. level students and is a member of the Advisory Board to P. G. Students as well he teaches food analysis. The petitioner had undergone training in the Analytical Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram. In view of his expertise in his subject, he was summoned as a witness in C.C. No. 131 of 1992. C.C. No. 131 of 1992 was a prosecution against one V. M. Muhammed Ali under S.2(1a), (b), 7(1) and 16(1)(a) and R.5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In the said case, the petitioner was summoned as a defence witness to tender his expert opinion with regard to chemical changes which would be undergone by gingelly oil under certain circumstances. In the course of cross examination, the petitioner was asked "without seeing the sample, can you say which factor has accelerated or precipitated the alleged Hydrolysis -. To this question, the petitioner tendered answer as "I can say by simply seeing Ext. P11 (Report of C.F.L.)". As per the petitioner, this provoked the learned Magistrate to record the following remarks at para 12 (page 9) of the Judgment.

(2.) Heard Counsel on both sides.

(3.) The only question to be considered is whether the adverse remarks made against the petitioner is liable to be expunged. The fact that the petitioner is a Professor of Chemistry in the Kerala Agricultural University and a specialist in Analytical Chemistry is not disputed by the respondent. The averments in the memorandum of Crl. Miscellaneous Petition shows that he was cited as a defence witness in C.C. No. 131 of 1992 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kunnamkulam. The specific case of the petitioner is that some unwarranted observations were made by the lower court against him. The petitioner is working in the Nutrition Department and he instructs P. G. level students and he is a member of the Advisory Board to P. G. Students as well. His specific case is that he is teaching Food Analysis and he had undergone training in the Analytical Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram. He was cited as a witness in view of the fact that he is an expert in the subject. Annexure B is the Judgment in C.C. No. 131 of 1992. It is seen from the Judgment that the lower court has made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. As per the learned Magistrate, the petitioner was not an impartial witness and according to him he was hired by the defence. The fact that the petitioner is an expert in Chemical analysis and he is a specialist in Analytical Chemistry cannot be disputed. The observation of the lower court shows that a question was put to the petitioner by the learned Public Prosecutor as follows: