SEBASTIAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial Magistrate issuing summons to the Public Analyst at the fag end of the trial. He is directed to appear with documents for showing the date of analysis of the sample. This petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code') is to quash the aforesaid order.

(2.) The petitioner is facing a charge for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After the close of the evidence of the prosecution, and after questioning the accused under S.313 of the Code the trial Magistrate posed the case for judgment. But instead of pronouncing judgment on that day the learned Magistrate passed an order for issuing summons to the Public Analyst. The Magistrate has stated in his order that on going through the report of the Public Analyst it appeared to him that for a just decision of the case the Public Analyst should be summoned as a court witness for ascertaining the date of analysis.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order on the main ground that the attempt is to fill up a lacuna in the prosecution evidence, The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the material sought to be produced is a vital record having great relevance in deciding the guilt of the accused, re-opening of the case for affording an opportunity for the said purpose would result in miscarriage of justice. The said contention has been advanced on the strength of the observation of a learned single Judge in Chandran v. State of Kerala ( 1985 KLJ 452 ). The learned single Judge observed that "recalling and re-examining a witness like the investigating officer for production and proof of a vital record having great relevance in deciding the guilt of the accused and that too after conclusion of the evidence cannot be said to be essential for the just decision of the case. A reading of the decision shows that the said observation is made with reference to the latter part of S.311 of the Code.