RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 621 of 1985 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is running a shop at Babuganj Bazar district Pratapgarh. On 11-3-1986 a sample of linseed oil was taken from his shop by the Chief Food Inspector, Pratapgarh and it was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. THE report of the Public Analyst was that the sample was adulterated and it was not to the prescribed standard. THE petitioner is, therefore, being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the case is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. THE petitioner moved an application under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for sending the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory Calcutta which was allowed and the sample was ordered to be sent for analysis to the Laboratory. THE sample could not be analysed as the bottle was found in broken condition and, thus, certificate of the Central Food Laboratory about the alleged adulteration could not be obtained. THE third bottle of sample had also been broken and, thus, there was no other sample available for being sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. THE petitioner, therefore, moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate that the proceedings may be dropped and he may be discharged as he has been deprived of his statutory right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. THE learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated 10-8-1988 and fixed 20th August, 1988 for recording evidence under Section 247 CrPC. Feeling dissatisfied with this order the present petition has been filed.

(3.) EVEN if it is assumed that the application had been moved on behalf of the petitioner for discharge at the proper stage the point to see is if he could be discharged in the circumstances of the case. Under Section 245 CrPC the accused could be discharged only when no case against the accused had been made out by the evidence led against him under Section 244 CrPC. It is undisputed that there was a report of the Public Analyst against the accused petitioner indicating that the sample was adulterated. The fact that the petitioner applied for sending another bottle of the sample to obtain certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and it could not be obtained because the bottle was found broken does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the report of Public Analyst was not correct or it had become worthless piece of evidence. The right of an accused to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory is a very valuable right and he should not be deprived to this right by any conduct of the prosecution. If the accused has been deprived of such right on account of some carelessness of or delay by the prosecution or the complainant the accused can claim benefit under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. If the complainant or the prosecution cannot be held responsible in getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, it is difficult to give any advantage to the accused. This view gets support from the observations made in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, 1967 CrLJ 939 SC. The relevant observations have been made in para 3 of the case and they are as given below :