Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 796 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Maganlal Girdhardas

2011-11-24

M.D.SHAH

body2011
JUDGMENT : M.D. SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned A.P.P., Mr.L.R. Pujari for the petitioners and learned advocates, Mr.D.K. Modi for the respondents in Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 275 of 1999 and Mr.Ekant Ahuja for the respondent in Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 224 of 2001. 2. Food Inspector Mr. K.R. Patel, lodged a complaint against the present petitioner under sections 2(ia), a, c, m, I and also under Section 7(1) and 16(1) of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was registered being Criminal Case No.1783 of 1998 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Modasa. The trial court has issued summons. 3. It is submitted by learned A.P.P., Mr. L.R. Pujari for the applicant-State in both the revisions that the report sent by the Director, Central Food Laboratory is not a report as per the rules and hence, the complainant ought to have been given an opportunity to examine Director, Central Food Laboratory. The learned Magistrate by not affording the opportunity to lead the evidence has caused a great injustice to the complainant. It is therefore requested that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate may be quashed and set aside and summons be issued to Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for giving evidence. 4. It is submitted by learned advocates for the respondents-original accused that it is true that when the sample taken from the original accused was sent for opinion of Public Analyst, Baroda, it was opined that the sample was adulterated. However, when the said sample was sent to Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on 31-12-1998 seeking opinion as to whether the sample contains presence of argemone oil, it was opined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, vide covering letter dated 31-3-1999 enclosing therewith copy of the report dated 17-2-1999 that the sample of groundnut oil is not adulterated. It was also stated therein that the seals were intact and tallied with the specimen impression of seal received separately along with copy of memorandum. The respondents-accused made application at Ex.13 before the trial court contending that in view of the report of Central Food Laboratory stating that the sample is not adulterated, there is no necessity to record any evidence. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 15-4-1999 discharged the original accused. The respondents-accused made application at Ex.13 before the trial court contending that in view of the report of Central Food Laboratory stating that the sample is not adulterated, there is no necessity to record any evidence. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Magistrate, vide judgment and order dated 15-4-1999 discharged the original accused. It is further submitted that the report of the Central Food Laboratory is final, the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered with in these revisions. 5. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan K Saraf & Anr., 1999 (1) EFR 271 wherein the Apex Court, at page No. 2 paras 15 & 16, held as under: "The legal impact of a Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is three-fold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned. If the argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation is upheld and the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is sidelined as pleaded him, the consequence is that there will not be anything surviving to show the quality or standard of the food articles involved in the case. Even that apart, the accused will be deprived of his statutory right to disprove the Report of the Public Analyst. In para 19 the Apex Court also held that "The High Court has rightly quashed the prosecution proceedings on the strength of the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory which has come on record in the case." 6. In view of the above, when the report dated 17-2-1999 of the Central Food Laboratory placed on record is in favour of the accused, there is no question of issuing summons to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for enabling the complainant to lead evidence. In the opinion of this Court, in light of the above referred judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Magistrate has rightly accepted the report of the Central Food Laboratory and rightly discharged the accused. In the opinion of this Court, in light of the above referred judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Magistrate has rightly accepted the report of the Central Food Laboratory and rightly discharged the accused. Since the said findings appear to this Court to be just, legal and proper, same are not required to be interfered with. Hence, both the revisions require to be dismissed. 7. Both the revisions are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. Office to place a copy of this judgment in each revision.