STATE OF KERALA Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal along with Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 133 and 135 of 1968, was referred to us by Raghavan, J., since according to the learned Judge "a fairly important question under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act" is involved in these cases. The appeal is against acquittal by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry in Calender Case No. 171 of 1966 which arose out of a complaint from the Food Inspector, Sreepandapuram Panchayat under S.16(1) and 7 read with S.2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case against the accused was that he was found keeping in his possession lac dhall otherwise known as Kesari dhall, for sale. The Food Inspector purchased 750 grams of the said commodity from the shop on payment of a price of 75 paise. On analysis it was reported by the Analyst that the ''sample represents one of Kesari or lac dhall" which is a totally prohibited article of food. The report of the public analyst was subsequently superseded by the certificate of analysis issued by the Central Food Laboratory which stated that the "sample represents one of Kesari or Lac dhall." The learned Magistrate holding that the data necessary to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the article in question was Kesari dhall were lacking, has acquitted the accused.

(2.) The learned State Prosecutor challenging the order of acquittal, pointed out that the necessary data have been given in the certificate and that the decision of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable. The report of the Public Analyst and the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory were both placed before us for our consideration. But on a perusal of the report and the certificate, we are not satisfied that either of them has given the necessary data to enable the Court to come to its own conclusion as to whether the article in question is the prohibited variety of lac dhall and that the accused has committed the offence with which he is charged. When the article in question is sent for further analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, it is the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory that is to govern the matter because under S.13(3) of the Act "the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-s.(2) shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst under sub-s.(1)''. The word "supersede" means "to take the place of by reason of superior right; to make useless by superior power; to replace; to displace, set aside, render unnecessary''. So when once the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory is received, the report of the public analyst will stand replaced or set aside. The position is made further clear by sub-s.(5) of S.13 which says:

(3.) It has repeatedly, been laid down that the certificate of the Analyst should contain actual data and not merely his opinion as to what the data indicated about the nature of the article. About the duty of Public Analyst, Rupert Cross in his book on Evidence, would observe: