RATAN LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is by one Ratan Lal and is directed against an appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jaipur City whereby the learned Judge, while dismissing the appeal lodged by the petitioner against judgment of the Municipal Magistrate First Class, Jaipur City dated 31st July, 1964 convicting the petitioner for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 2,000, maintained both the conviction and the sentence.

(2.) THE prosecution story was a short one. On 25th July, 1962 at about 8. 30 A. M. a food Inspector visited the shop of the accused petitioner where he sells ghee and the Inspector took a sample of ghee weighing about 12 ounces for test purposes after paying him Rs. 2. 87 P. The ghee thus obtained was divided in three phials which were sealed in the presence of the motbirs. One phial was handed over to the accused, the other one was sent to the Municipal Council and the third one was sent to the Chief Public Analyst, Rajasthan for examination. The Chief Public analyst gave his report to the effect that the ghee in question was found to he adulterated After obtaining the necessary sanction the accused was put on trial before the learned Municipal Magistrate. Jaipur The learned Magistrate recorded the evidence of the Food Inspector and the motbirs about the taking of the sample of ghee In the course of the trial the accused made an application before the learned Magistrate that the sample be sent to the Director of Central Food laboratory. Accordingly the learned Magistrate sent the sample to the Director of central Food Laboratory and the Director in due course is said to have issued a certificate about the examination of the sample at the Central Food Laboratory The accused while not contesting the taking of the sample from his shop in the manner alleged by the prosecution did not admit that the same was adulterated. The point of controversy that emerged was whether the sample was an adulterated one and for proving this the prosecution placed reliance in the first instance on the report of the Chief Public Analyst Rajasthan, and in view of the subsequent report of the director of Central Food Laboratory they placed reliance on the certificate of the director. However, the original certificate that the Director had sent to the court did not reach the court and consequently the court asked for a copy of the same from the Director of Central Food Laboratory. In compliance the Director sent a copy of his certificate sent earlier and that copy was placed on the record. The fate of this revision turns on the determination of the Question whether the copy of the certificate of the Director as distinct from the original certificate could legitimately furnish a basis for the drawing of the inference about the adulterated nature of the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory. Both the courts had treated that certified copy as the requisite certificate for proof of the facts stated therein. The additional Sessions Judge observed that a certificate issued by the Director being a Public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act a certified copy thereof could be taken in evidence when the original was not forthcoming. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the admissibility of the certified copy of the certificate of the Director. He submits that what Sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Act makes admissible in evidence regarding the proof of its contents is the certificate purporting to be signed by the Director and not a mere copy though a certified one of the same. Section 18 which falls for consideration in this regard runs as follows: (Section 13 reproduced.)

(3.) THIS section makes the report of a Public Analyst admissible in evidence. Subsection (2) thereof enables either of the parties to seek a reference of the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and it ha* been made incumbent on the Director of the Central Food Laboratory to examine the sample and send his certificate in the prescribed form within one month from the date of the receipt of the sample, specifying therein the result of the analysis. The issuance of the certificate by the Director has the effect of completely superseding the report of the Public Analyst. Sub-section (5) enacts that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director may be used a" evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act. The proviso appended thereto further provides that any document purporting to be certificate signed by the Director shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The reference of the sample to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is in the nature of a safeguard for the parties. It has been given an ever-riding effect and the moment it is issued it completely displaces the earlier report given by the Public Analyst. However, the rule about the admissibility of the document is a departure from the normal rule about adducing of evidence in a criminal trial, that the evidence furnished by the certificate is not given by the person issuing the certificate in the presence of the accused with the opportunity of cross examination but the certificate itself becomes evidence of the analysis conducted at the laboratory. Thus the rule being in the nature of a departure, in some way, from the normal procedure of a criminal trial has to be construed as it is. We have not be to set our sights higher and wider than what is warranted or permitted by the statute. The statute in clear terms permits only the use of a certificate purporting to he signed by the Director. In so many words it does not say that a copy of the certificate could take the place of the certificate itself for the purposes of drawing inference therefrom as is envisaged in Sub-section (8) of Section 13 of the Act. The words "any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director" do mean only the document by looking at which one can unhesitatingly say that it bears the signature of the Director. To my mind, a copy of certificate will not convey to the mind the very impression about the authorship of the certificate as would be conveyed by the original certificate.