State of Gujarat vs Prafulchandra Ranchhod Kumar

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30th March 1996, whereby the accused of the Criminal Case No. 455 of 1988 filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been acquitted only on the ground that the analysis report submitted in evidence was not signed on the day it was prepared. The trial court followed the order and judgment of this court in holding that if the reports were not prepared and signed by the analyst on the same day when the samples were analyzed, they would cease to have any evidentiary value and, therefore, the accused could not be convicted on the basis of such report.

Heard Mr. M.G. Nanavati learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent accused.

At the time of hearing, it has been pointed out by Mr. Nanavati regarding the judgment of the division bench of this court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Vishramdas Virumal, , wherein the judgment and order of this court relied upon by the Trial Court was questioned in the reference made to the Division Bench and ultimately the question referred to the Division Bench was answered in the following terms."

A report of the public analyst delivered u/s 13(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 declaring on analysis of a sample of food to be ''adulterated'' or misbranded'' cannot be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the court or the accused raising a doubt about the correctness of the report only on the ground that the report is signed by the Public Analyst later on and not on the date on which sample was analyzed.

It is submitted by Mr. Nanavati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor having relied upon the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench that the order impugned in this appeal is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Trial Court to consider this part of the evidence regarding correctness of the report of the Public Analyst. Further, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant has also cited the decision in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Uttamchand Hathichand Shah and others 2007 (2) GLH 249 in support of his submissions.

I have perused the record of the case the judgment referred to above and having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, I am of the considered opinion that correctness of the report of Public Analyst cannot be ignored without examining the Public Analyst as a witness either by the court or the accused. In this view of the matter, it is apparently clear that the trial court has committed serious error while passing the impugned order.

In view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In case record and proceedings are received in this court, the same will be returned to the trial court forthwith and the trial court shall proceed with the original criminal case in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. The District Judge Rajkot is directed to list the criminal case no. 455 of 1988 before the concerned trial court with a direction to decide and dispose of the said criminal case as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order.