STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VISHRAMDAS VIRUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of us, on 22-9-1998, considering the importance of question raised, referred the matter to a Division Bench and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has directed the office to place the matter before us for answering the question raised in the aforesaid appeal.

(2.) The question raised is as under : "Can a report of the Public Analyst delivered under Sec. 13(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 declaring on analysis of a sample of food to be "adulterated" or "misbranded", be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the Court or the accused raising a doubt about the correctness of the report only on the ground that the report is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which sample was analysed?"

(3.) From the record it appears that on 25-1-1990 at about 4.45 p.m., Shri N. M. Patel, Food Inspector, in presence of panchas collected samples of Jowar and Split Pulse (Moong Dal). As per the prosecution case the samples were collected in accordance with the rules and on analysis the sample of Moong Dal was found having tartrazine yellow coaltar colour in breach of Rule 23 and thus was held to be adulterated. After obtaining consent, the prosecution came to be filed. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that the accused is not guilty.