CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the case are as under :-

(2.) The learned counsel has simply produced the bottle which was with the accused and which was sought to be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for the inspection of this Court. I have been seen the bottle and find all the seals absolutely intact and the bottle apparently is properly packed, labelled and sealed. No doubt, one of the seals on the top of the bottle appears to have been slightly eroded form one side, but despite that the main impression on the seal is still intact and it cannot be said that the seal had been broken or tampered with.

(3.) Apart from that, there are three more seals on the side of the bottle after the bottle had been properly packed and fastened with a thread and there is absolutely no indication that these seals or the packing in any manner, had been interfered with or tampered with. The mere fact that the top seals is slightly eroded is no ground whatever for refusing to send this bottle to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, particularly in view of the latest authority if our own High Court cited as 1970 Punjab Law Reporter page 601 where their Lordships have held that the word 'may' used by the Legislature in the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act should be given the meaning of 'must' or shall and it was further held that the trial Court had no power for declining the prayer of accused for sending the bottle for analysis to the Director.