PARAS DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482. Code of Criminal Procedure requiring this Court to quash an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind whereby during a trial under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has required the Director of Central Food Laboratory Gaziabad. or any other responsible officer, to appear as Court witness along with the analysis report and data of the case.

(2.) THE grouse of the petitioner is that the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is in his favour and on the strength thereof, the case deserves to be decided in his favour. His further grievance is that the step taken by the learned Magistrate is towards improvement of the case of the prosecution. rather an effort to whittle down the effect of the certificate of the Central Food Laboratory.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It need be noticed that the proviso to the subsection (5) of Section 13 of the Act vouchsafes that a certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The expression "conclusive evidence" employed therein, is emphatic that no further evidence is required to establish or demolish the conclusive nature of the facts embodied in the certificate. The learned Magistrate was influenced by the factor that the Director had nowhere mentioned in the certificate on which date the sample was analysed and whether it was analysed within the statutory period of one month from the date of despatch/receipt of the same. The authority enjoined upon to perform a legal function, is presumed to be well aware of these facts and official acts are presumed to have been done and performed in the normal manner. A fishing enquiry for the purpose was un -called for. In view of the mandate of the proviso to sub -section (5) of section 13 of the Act, the facts stated in the certificate would yet remain conclusive evidence for the purpose of the Court. The wisdom of the Legislature cannot be questioned by the court in that regard. Accordingly, it is held, that the step taken by the learned Magistrate is bordering abuse of the process of the Court and not in consonance with the interest of justice.