MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Of' DELID v. GIDSA RAM

respondent challenged the correctness of the analysis of the sample A made by the Public Analyst, and a further plea was taken that the re5pondent having been denied his right of obt:iinina the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because of the delay by the appellant in launching the prosecution, the respondent <:ould not be validly convicted. This defence was acrepted by the Magis trate, and the respondent was acquit:ed. The appellant filed an B .appeal against this order of acquittal before the Delhi Bench of the Punjab High Court, but that Court upheld the c-rder of the Magis trate. The appellant has now come up to this Court, by special leave, against that decision of the High Court. In this appeal, the main contention on behalf of the appellant was that, though, under the Act, a certificate of the Director o; the Central .food Laboratory has the effect of superseding report of the Public Analyst, the absence of such a certificate for any reason whatsoever will not affect the value and efficacy of the certificate given by the Public Analyst. The proposition put forward on behalf of the appellant appears to be correct. Under s. 13(3) of the Act, the certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report given by the Public Analyst. The proviso to sub-section (5) of s. 13 further lays down that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Foo<! Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence <>fthefacts stated th~rein. These provisions of the Act are, however, only attracted when, in fact, an analysis of the samplr. sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is made by him on the basis of which he issues a certificate. If, for any reason, no certi ncate is issued, the report given by the Public Analyst docs not <:ease to be evidence of the facts contained in it and does not become ineffective merely because it could have been superseded by the <:ertificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Further, there being no certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, no question can arise of his certificate becoming final and conclusive evidence of the report contained in it. This aspect, however, does not conclude the matler 5o far as the question of the validity of the acquittal of the respondent is concerned. There can be no doubt that sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act <:eufers a right on the accused vendor to have the sample given to him examined by the Director of the Centra! Food Laboratory and to obtain a certificate from him on the basis of the analysis of that sample. It is when the accused Cll:erciscs this riaht that a certi ficate has to be given by the Director of the Central Food Labora tory and th.at certificate then supersedes the repm1 given by the Public Analyst. If, in any case, the accused does not choose ta exercise this right, the case against him can be decided on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. Difficulty, however, arises in c D E F G H A B c D E Ii G II MUNICIPAL CORP. v. GIDSA RAM. (Bhargava, I.) 119: a case where the accused does exercise the right by making a ·quest to the Court to send his sample for analysis to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and the Director is unable to issue a certificate because of some reason, including the reason that the sample of the food article has so deteriorated and become decom posed that no analysis is possible. In the present case, we long delay that had occurred the Director. The sample was it was find that the decomposition of the sample, which the respondent desired should be analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, took place in s~nding because of the taken on the sample September 20, 1961, while the Director after October 4, 1963, when respondent made his that behalf. The submission on behalf of application the respondent was that the appellant instituted the prose cution of and conse quently, under s. 13(2) of the Act, accrued the respondent to have analysis only thereafter. accused vendor may make institution of a prosecution under tl-te Act." No right vest to have 1.he sample analysed in this case until the prosecution was launched on May 23, 1962. the respondent on May 23, 1962, the right specifically mentions the sample sent for the respondent Section 13(2) "after application The opinion of one of the experts, Dr. Sat Parkash, given in this case shows that in the case of a food article, like curd, it starts undergoing changes after a week, if kept at room temperatu:e, with out a preservative, but remains fit for analysis for another 10 days thereafter. On the other hand, if the sample is kept in a refri gerator, it will preserve its fat and non-fatty solid contents for pur poses of analysis for a total p11riod of four weeks. If a preservative is added and the sample is kept at room temperature, the percentage of fat and non-fatty solids contents for purposes of analysis will be. retained for about four months, and in case it is kept in a refri· gerator after adding the preservative, the total period which may be available for making analysis, without decomposition, will be six months. In this case, when the Food Inspector handed over the sample to the respondent, the respondent was not expected to keep it in a refrigerafor. Consequently, without any preservative, the sample kept with him could have been analysed successfully during the next 17 days, whereas, if a preservative had been added, it could have been analysed successfully during the next four months. It appe:irs to us that wh:m a valuable right is conferred by s. 13 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Foo.d Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not \le denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because tht 120 SUPREME COUJ.T r.EPOl.TS [1967) 2 S.C.R certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certi ficate is to be accepted by Court as conclusi·;e evidence In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate con duct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his con viction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the focts con tained therein. We are not to be understood as laying down that, in every case where the right of the vendor to hav~ his sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory is frustrated, the vendor cannot be convicted on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. We con~ider that the principle must, however, be applied to cases where the conduct of the prosecution has result~d in the denial to the vendor of any opportunity to exercise this right. Different considerations may arise if the right gets frustrated for reasons for which the prosecution is not responsible. In the present case, the sample was taken on the 20th Septem beT, 1961. Ordinar!ly, it should have been possible for the prose cution to obtain the report of the Public Analyst and institute the prosecution within 17 days of the taking of the sa.nple. It. how that delay took place even .'.n obtaining the report ever, appears of the Public Analyst, because the Public Analyst actually a;Jalyscd the sample on 3rd October, 1961 and sent his report on 23rd Octo ber, 1961. It may be presumed that some delay in the analysis by the Public Analyst and in his sending his report to the prose cution is bound to occur. Such delay could always be envisaged by the prosecution, and consequently, the elementary precaution of adding a preservative to the sample which was given to the res pondent should necessarily have been taken by the Food Inspector. If such a precaution had been taken, the sample with the respon dent would have been available for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a period of four months wh; ch would have expired ab0ut the 20th of January, 1962. The report of the Public Analyst having been sent on 23rd October, 1961 to the prose cution, the prosecution could have been launched well in time to enable the respondent to excrci.~e his right under s. 13(2) of the Act without being handicapped by the deterioration of his sample. The prosecution, on the other hand, committed inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when they tiled the complaint on 23rd May, 1962, and no explanation month~ after complaint the report of the Public Analyst had been issued by him. forthcoming why in Court was about seven A B c D E F G H. MUNICIPAL CORP. v. GHISA RAM (Bhargava, I.) 121 A B c D E F is, therefore, clearly a case where respondent This, was deprived of the. opportunity of exercising his have his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. In such a case, we think that the respondent is entitled to claim that his conviction is vitiated by this circumstance of denial of this valuable right guaran teed by the Act, as a result of the conduct of the prosecution. Learned coul!sel for the appellant drew our attention to a decision reported in Suckling v. Park.er( 1). That case was concerned with similar law in England, but, there, the provision relating to the testing of the sample kept with the vendor was quite different. In England, there was no restriction that the vendor could not have his sample tested until after the prosecution was launched, nor did the subsequent report have the effect of completely superseding the earlier report of the Analyst. In Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, v. Kis.'ian Swaroop,(2) it was held that, where there was delay in launching the prosccul.lon, it deprived the accused of the valuable right to challenge the report of the Analyst in the manner prescdbed by s. 13(2) of the Act, and when this right was denied to the accused for no fault of his, but wholly due to the inordinate !aches of the prosecution, no weight could be given to the report of the Public Analyst. That decision proceeded on the basis of the value of the report of the Public Analyst being affected by the fact that the accused had been deprived of his right to challenge that report by obtaining a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Public Analyst, as we have said earlier, does not cease to be good evidence merely because a certificate from the Director of the Cen tral Food Laboratory cannot be obtained. The reason why the conviction cannot be..sustained is that the accused is prejudiced in his defence and is denied a valuable right ·of defending himself solely due to the deliberate arts of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the acquittal of the respondent was justified, and the appeal is dismissed. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed - - 0) (1906] I K.B.527. (2) A.I.R. 1965 M.P. 180. Ml 9Sup. Cl/66-9