R MALLIKHARJUNA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel representing the petitioners in all these criminal petitions and the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Nageswararao.

(2.) Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners had taken this Court through the grounds raised in all these criminal petitions and would maintain that his contention is not with regard to the aspect of sending the sample of Chanda Vanaspathi for analysis to the Public Analyst, the delay and the other aspects. In all fairness, the learned counsel would maintain that these aspects may have to be gone into at the time of trial. The learned counsel however, would point out as to the report of the Public Analyst and would contend that the last portion of the report of the Public Analyst specifies Baudouin test and the same is also within the permissible limit and in the light of the same, these proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel placed reliance on Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Mehar Singh.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri Nageswararao would maintain that all these aspects are no doubt defences available to the accused, and these aspects may have to be decided only at the appropriate stage. The learned Public Prosecutor also would contend with regard to the fact as to whether Baudouin test is a doubtful test or not and whether it is within the permissible limits or not, these are all questions, which may have to be decided at the time of trial and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.