STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTTAMCHAND HATHICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has approached this Court under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Cr. P. C.), in each of the petitions to challenge the various orders whereby the accused in the criminal cases filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have been discharged only on the ground that the analysis reports submitted in evidence were not signed on the day they were prepared. The trial courts followed the orders and judgments of this court in holding that, if the reports were not prepared and signed by the analyst on the same day when the samples were analysed, they would cease to have any evidentiary value and. therefore, the accused could not be convicted on the basis of such report.

(2.) THE learned A. P. P. pointed out from the Division Bench judgment of this court in State of Gujarat v. Vishramdas Virumal 2002 (1) FAC 67 : [2000 (4) GLR 2884] that those very orders and judgments of this court relied upon by the trial court were called into question in the reference made to the Division Bench and, after elaborate discussion of the relevant rules, the question referred to the Division Bench was answered in the following terms:

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. B. K. Modi. appearing for the original accused in each of the cases, submitted that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment having been pronounced or having come to light later on, the impugned orders were legal and proper on the date they were made and once the accused person was discharged, he must get the benefit of the principle of prospective overruling. He submitted that the doctrine of prospective overruling was recognized and applied by this court in similar cases of food adulteration. He relied upon the judgment of this court in Arvind kumar Trikamlal Raval v. State of Gujarat 1994 (2) FAC 31 : [1995 cri. L. J. 3174] wherein, after two Full Bench pronouncements, the accused had lost both the grounds of defence on which he had secured his acquittal before the first appellate court. It was urged before this court that the law which was holding the field came to be altered only after acquittal of the accused. The court observed, after referring to the decisions of the supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Alaserry Mohammed [1978 (1) FAC 145] and in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani v. State of maharashtra [1975 (1) FAC 1 (FB), that the Supreme Court had leaned towards the doctrine of prospective overruling because, though the earlier view which was holding the field for a pretty long time came to be altered, the Supreme Court thought it fit and proper not to interfere with the orders of acquittal in those cases which were decided before the alteration of the legal position consequent to the pronouncement by the larger bench.