Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 226 (UTT)

Chandra Oil Mills v. State

2004-09-17

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2004
Judgment The petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 610/ 1985 State Vs. J.C. Pandey and others pending in the court of CJM, Almora. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the sample of mustard oil was taken on 16-03-1985 from the applicant (original accused no, 3). The sample was sent for examination to the Public Analysis, Luc know who submitted its report dated 22-4-1985 that the argemone was positive, On the basis of the said report, the Swastha Adhikari sanctioned that the complaint be filed against the applicant. Thereafter, while exercising the right under section 13(2) of the Food Adulteration Act the sample was sent for examination. to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta at the instance of the applicant (accused no. 3). The Central Food Laboratory vide report dated 1-4-1986 found that the argemone was negative. Thus, the report of the Central Food Laboratory will supersede the report of the Public Analysis under section 13(3) of the Act. The learned Magistrate however rejected the application holding that there are certain cuttings on the report. But, it is not disputed anywhere in the order that the report with regard to the argemone oil was found negative. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate rejecting the application the case was fixed for the charge and statement of the accused. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has come up before this court. 4. I have heard Sri Rajendra Kotiyal learned counsel for the applicant & Sri Amit Bhatt learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate should have sent the third Sample in case he was of the view that the report submitted by the Central Food Laboratory is not satisfactory or there was some discrepancies in the report. However, the learned Magistrate has not exercised the jurisdiction to send the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory. He further submitted that without taking the recourse of sending the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory the Magistrate cannot proceed with the trial. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the Magistrate did not send the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The Magistrate was of the view that there were' certain cuttings on the report and ordered for enquiry on the administrative side. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the Magistrate did not send the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The Magistrate was of the view that there were' certain cuttings on the report and ordered for enquiry on the administrative side. Merely to institute an enquiry is not sufficient. The learned Magistrate should have sent the third sample to the Central Food Laboratory. 7. The. learned counsel for the applicant in support of his argument has referred the decision in Narendra Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation, Indore 1986 Cri. L.J. p/1688 (p/1690), in which it has been held: "9. From a combined reading of the provisions embodied in section 13(2-8) of the Act and the proviso to section 13(5) of the Act it is clear that the certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory sent to the Court in prescribed form specifying the result of the analysis is final and constitutes conclusive evidence of the facts stated (as distinguished from the opinion) therein. In the decision in Mohanlal's case (AIR 1962 Raj 44) (sic) it has been pointed out that there are two limitations to the finality or conclusiveness of the Director's certificates; (i) that it is governed by the standards laid down by the Rules, (ii) that it is merely final and conclusive as regards the test or analysis. It is ultimately for the Court to decide whether the article of food is adulterated or not. Under section 13(2C) after receipt of the certificate, the remaining part of the sample has to be destroyed. The proviso to section 13(2C) however lays down that where the part of the sample sent by the Court to the Director is 'lost or damaged' the third sample may be sent to the Director for certificate being sent by him. The proviso clearly points out that in certain contingencies remaining sample can again be sent to the Director." 8. Thus the proposition of law as laid down in the aforesaid proviso clearly points out that in certain contingencies the remaining third sample can again be sent to the Director in case the learned Magistrate has any doubt with regard to the authenticity of the report. The learned Magistrate should have sent the third sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate should have sent the third sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The provisions of section 13 do not impliedly prohibit the sending the remaining third sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory even where it is found that the certificate already sent is not clear on the controversy or does not help the Court in determining the controversy as viewed by it. 9. Section 13(3) provided that the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (under sub-section 2-B) shall supersede the report given by the public analyst under sub-section (1). 10. Thus, the report dated 22-4-1985 of the Public Analysis, Luc-know stands superseded by the report of the Central Food Laboratory in which it has been found that the argemone was negative. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the report of the Central Food Laboratory, which reveals that the argemone was found negative, will supersede the report of the Public Analysis and as such the sample was not found adulterated. Therefore, the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 610/1985 are liable to be dismissed. The proceedings in Criminal Case no. 610/1985 are hereby quashed. 12. The petition is finally disposed of accordingly.