HANUMANTTA RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU J.

(2.) THE appellant was convicted under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. According to the prosecution eight bottles were found with the appellant and one bottle was sent to the Chemical Analyser and it was found to have contained liquor. THE prosecution relied on the report of the Chemical Analyser but there is no evidence to prove that one of the bottles found with the accused was sent to the Chemical Analyser and that was the bottle which was examined by the Chemical Analyser. THE complainant does say that one of the eight bottles was sent to the Chemical Analyser. In such matters a passive voice should not be used. We do not know who sent the bottle to the Chemical Analyser. THE complainant has not deposed that he sent the bottle to the Chemical Analyser. THE person who actually sent the bottle to the Chemical Analyser must be examined as a witness and he must produce the letter which he sent along with the bottle so as to understand the report of the Chemical Analyser. Unless that letter is produced the reference in the report of the Chemical Analyser to the contents of the letter is not admissible in evidence. THEre is therefore no proof in this case that one of the eight bottles found with the appellant was sent to the Chemical Analyser and that was the bottle to which the report relates.