PASHORI LAL AND ANR. Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Cr. Misc. petitions Nos. 983 -M and 985 -M of 1979. These petitions, under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, turn on the question whether the Appellate Court while setting aside the conviction of the accused has the power to direct the trial court to examine a prosecution witness who could not be examined during the trial and deliver a fresh judgment after hearing arguments on merits. In both these cases the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision after examining the Public Analyst. The learned Magistrate convicted the Petitioners under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each.

(2.) NOW I may deal with the facts in Cr. Misc. petition No. 983 -M of 1979. The prosecution case, in brief, is that) no receipt of a secret information on 23rd January, 1974, Inspector Charanjit Singh of Police Station, Rupnagar, accompanied by Sita Ram, Dev Raj and some police officials raided the godown of the Petitioners in Camp Mubarakpur and recovered 80 bags of white salt. The Petitioners could not produce any permit or licence to keep the white salt. The inspector took samples from each of the bags and thereafter the bags and the samples were sealed and taken into possession, - -vide recovery memo Ex. PC. On the basis of ruqa, Ex. PF, sent by the Inspector to the Police station, Mubarakpur, the formal first information Report, Ex. PF/4, was recorded. The Public Analyst, who examined the samples found it a common salt but it did not contain any iodine either as iodite or iodate. On the completion of the investigation, the Petitioners were sent up for trial, At the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses in support of its case but it appears that the Public Analyst could not be examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate on the material placed before him came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the Petitioners and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments before the Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the reports of the Public Analyst, Exs. P -81 to P -161, could not be legally received into evidence in view of the provisions of Section 293, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereunder the Govt. Scientific Experts have been detailed. It was urged that the reports of the Public Analyst had been wrongly admitted into evidence and the same could not have been taken into evidence unless the Public Analyst was examined as a witness in the case. In support of his contention, the learned Public Prosecutor cited an unreported decision in case State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 1975, decided by D. B. Lal and Harbans Lal, JJ., of this Court on 6th October, 1978.