MOTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this revision petition, are that a sample of milk was taken from the petitioner on 29.6.78, & since it was found to be adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst, dated 10.7.78, a challan was filed in the court. The petitioner submitted an application that another sample may be sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad. The Director, Central Food Laboratory sent his report on 10/11.3.1980, that the sample had de-composed, therefore, it was not possible to analyse the sample thereupon, the prosecution requested the court that the third sample be also sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The application was allowed and the Director, Central Food Laboratory vide its report dated 16.2.1982 found that the sample was adulterated.

(2.) After recording evidence, including the two experts, both on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence, the trial court convicted the accused petitioner. His appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. It is against that order, that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and since the Director, Central Food Laboratory vide its letter dated 10/11-3-1980 found that the sample had de-composed and it was not possible to analyse the sample. The trial court had no jurisdiction to send the third sample for analysis. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Ram Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1978 (2) B.A C. 79) which has been relied in Darshan Lal Vs. State of Punjab 1982(1) F.A.C. 290) (P&H) wherein it has been observed found that if the Director of Central Food Laboratory finds that the sample has decomposed, it does not fall within the meaning of loss or damage mentioned in proviso to Sec. 13(2) (c). He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kajod Mal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1980(2) F.A.C. 76) wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the court should not have sent the third sample for report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory.