RAMSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint against the accused was that on 29-12-1969, milk was purchased by the Food Inspector Bhide (P.W. 1) which, on analysis by the Public Analyst, was found to be adulterated vide his report dated 29-12-1969 (Ex. P.8). The complaint was filed on 16-1-1970 and the accused appeared before the trial Court on 31-1-1970. The trial, however, commenced on 31-3-1973 after charges were framed. During this trial, the accused submitted an application on 11-1-1975 in which it was prayed that the 3rd bottle was required for the cross-examination of the Food Inspector. The Court, accordingly, directed the Food Inspector to produce the said bottle, but on 19-8-1975 the Food Inspector reported that the bottle was lost and, therefore could not be produced. However, relying on the report of the Public Analyst, the accused was convicted and sentenced. Both in the trial Court as well as in the appellate Court, the applicant's contention was that in view of the inability of the Food Inspector to produce the third bottle, he was prejudiced in his defence, inasmuch as he could not either effectively cross-examine the Food Inspector or get the said sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory u/s 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) According to the provisions of section 11 of the Act, before the Act, was amended by Act No. 34 of 1976, the Food Inspector under section II (1) (c)(iii) was required to retain the third part in case any legal proceedings were taken on for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act as the case may be. The accused no doubt had the third sample with him but this did not mean that the Food Inspector was absolved from the liability imposed upon him under the aforesaid provisions of section 11. The said provision, as already referred to above, clearly provided that the third bottle was to be retained by the Food Inspector in case legal proceedings are taken or for analysis of the Director, Central Food Laboratory under sub section (2) of section 13 of the Act. It is not disputed that legal proceedings were taken against the accused and when that was so the Food Inspector could not deprive the accused of the right given to him under the aforesaid section by reporting that the third sample with him was lost which was to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory u/s 13(2) of the Act and further if the Director was to give his report then the report of the Public Analyst would have stood superseded. It cannot be disputed that if an accused is deprived of the valuable right conferred by section 13(2) of the Act, then the accused is seriously prejudiced to his defence and in that event the order of conviction passed on the report of the Public Analyst cannot be maintained. In my opinion, therefore, on this ground the conviction of the accused has to be set aside.

(3.) Accordingly for the reasons given above, the applicant's conviction under section 7 read with Sec. (1) (a) (i) of the Act and the sentence of one years's R.l. and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 with six months' R.l. in default are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted. The accused is already on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. Fine if paid shall be refunded. Revision accepted.