LexCALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus PAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
PAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.
JANUARY 13, 1999
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND
S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : Section 13(3) and
( 5 }-Proviso.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955: Rule 4-Fonns 1 and.2
Appendix B-Item A.04:
Food adulteration-Contradictions in reports of Public Analyst and
Central Food Laborat01y--Effect of--Compozmded asaf oetida-Adulteration
D of-Report of public analyst stating that sample does not conj orm to
prescribed standards hence adulterated-On the other hand report of Central
Food Laborato1y stating that sample conj om1s to standards-However, report
of Central Food laboratory silent on three components of compounded
asafoetida-Report also not sent in prescribed fonn-Effect of contradictions
E in reports on prosecution of accused.
Per Thomas and Quadii, JJ.
If the ce1tificate issued by the Director of Central Food laboratory did
F not contain anything about three elements it only means that the sample did
not contain even a wee bit of those elements. Once the Certificate of the
Director of Central Food Laborato1y reaches the court the Report of the
Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it.
Legal impact of a ce1tificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is
three-[ old, it annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains
G finality regatding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the
case and it becomes iTTefu.table so far as the facts stated therein are concemed.
If a State declares a fact final then no party can give evidence to disprove
it-17iis is imp01t of Section 4 of the Evidence Act.
H
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR (1967) SC 970 =
74
;·
CALCUTIAMUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. PAWANK.SARAF
75
[1967] 2 SCR 116 and Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.,. AIR A
(1981) SC 1387 = [1981] 3 SCC 72, relied on.
PER WADHWA, J. (DISSENTING)
(Without expressing Final opinion on merits)
No opinion need be expressed on the statement of law that "if the
ce1tificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory did not contain
anything about those three elements it only means that the sample did not
co11tai11 eve11 a wee bit of those elements when analysis was made in the
laboratory". In this case report of Central Food Authority was not only sile11t
i11 respect of three elements but also was 11ot sent in the prescribed f onn---111
such a situation the questio11 Whether It Would supersede the report of public
a11alyst should not be decided by this Court ex parte of its own without 11otice
to the parties and without hearing the matter in depth.
Mu11icipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] 2 SCR 116 and
B
c
A
Chetumal v. State of Madhya Prasad &A11r., [1981] 3 sec 72, distinguished. D
Constitutio11 of India, 1950 : Article 136.
Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XVI-Rule JO.
Special leave petition-Delay-Condo11ation of-Delay of 309 E
day~Sufficiellt cause not shown for delay-Petitio11 dismissed on the ground
of delay-Whe11 petition is dismissed on the ground of delay Court should 11ot
go into merits.
Collector, Land acquisition, Anant11ag a11dAnr. v. Mst. Katiji a11d Ors.,
AIR (1987) SC 1353.
F
Ram/al & Ors. v.Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR (1962) SC361 andRam
Lal Kapur & So11s (P) Ltd. v. Ram Nath & Ors., [1963] 2 SCR 242, referred
to.
Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad. 269, cited.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
tion {Crl.) No. 3708 of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.97 of the Calcutta High
G
Court in Cr!. R. No. 1100 of 1996.
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 1 S.C.R.
A
L.C. Agrawala, (A.C.) (N.P.) for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
When we dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 5.11.1998 we also
B said that reasons of such dismissal will follow. Accordingly we state our
reasons hereunder :
Special leave petition has been filed by the Calcutta Municipal
Corporation against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court of
Calcutta quashing a prosecution proceeding pending against the respon-
C dent for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The
aforesaid proceedings were initiated in the following background :
On 19.7.1989 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta took
D sample of compExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.