JAIRAM Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L . Shri K.S. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel, I have also perused the impugned judgment by the Sessions Judge and gone through the judgment of the trill Court as well as other relevant evidence made available to me from the brief of the learned counsel.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case which applies to the case on hand is Babulal Hargovindas v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1971 SC 1277 wherein it was held that there is no justification for holding that the accused had no opportunity for sending the sample in his custody to the Director, Central Food Laboratory under section 13(2) of the Act because he made no application to the Court for sending it. It is further observed that it is not available to the accused to say that over four months had elapsed from the time the sample was taken to the time when the complaint was filed and consequently the sample deteriorated and could not be analysed. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this contention.