Judgment · High Court · 2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr. Vipin Makkad, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.4.2012 passed by the learned revisional court, whereby, the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.666/2003 has been affirmed. The petitioner is facing trial in the court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Upon the petitioner's request, the second sample of the food article was sent to the CFL, from where, a report has been received that the sample was adulterated. When the prosecution sought permission to exhibit the same on record, the accused made an objection that the witness who had prepared the report should be called for and then only the report should be permitted to be exhibited. In the opinion of this Court, the prayer thus made was

misconceived and has rightly been rejected by the courts below. The report of the expert submitted under Section 293 Cr.P.C. is admissible in evidence without calling the witness and therefore the trial court has rightly directed for exhibiting the report. Resultantly, this misc. petition as well as stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby dismissed. (SANDEEP MEHTA), J. ms rathore