MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF' DELHI versus GHISA RAM

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 23-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Of' DELID 
v. 
GIDSA RAM 
November 23, 1966. 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
Prevelllion of Food A.dult.;ratwn Act (37 of 1954), s. 13(2), (3) and 
(5)-Delay in filing prosecu1ion--Sample given lo accu..rRd vendor decom. 
101ed-Examination of sample by Dir.ctar of Central Foo<' Laborvtary 
not pomhle-A.ccused, if prejudiced. 
1be Food Inspector of the appellant-Munlcipality took a slmple of 
A 
B 
eurd from the respondent's shop for the purpose of testing whether there c 
was any adulteration. The sampb W8' divided into three equal part-•, put 
in separate bottles and se:iled. One bottle was handed over to the respon-
dent and one was sent to the Public Analyst who analysed it and scot his 
report. 
On the basis of that report a complaint was filtd, seven months 
after receipt of the report, against the respondent, for an offence under 
ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 
During 
the trail, the respondent applied to have the sample ~iven to him analysed 
by the Director of the Central 
Food Laboratory 
m 
accordance with 
D 
s. 13(2) of the Act. The Director reported that the s:unple had become 
highly decomposed and could not be analysed. The trial Court acquitted 
the responden! accepting his contention that he could not be convicted 
after having been denied his right of obtaining the Director"• ""rti11cate 
by the delay in launching the prosecution. 
On the question whether he should have been convicted on the basis ot 
the P~blic Analyst's report. 
E 
HELD: A right is conferred ny s. 13(2) on the accused-vendo, to 
have the sample, given to him by the Food Inspector, analysed by the 
Director after the prose<:ution was launched against him. 
It is a 'Hluable 
right, because, he could for bis proper defence, have that sample anaJJ'C(I 
by a more competent expert, whose certificate Sl!perscdes 
the report of 
the Public Analyst under s. 13(3), and is to be accepted by the Court 
as conclusive evidence of its contents under the proviso to s. 
13 ( 5). 
F 
However, if for any reason, no cenificat~ is issued by the Director, the 
report of the Public Analyst does not cease to 
be 
evidence of the 
facts contained in it. 
But, in a case where there is denial of this right on 
account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, the accused-vendor 
would be seriously prejudiced in bis trial, and could not be convicted on 
the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report may be evidence 
in the cote, of the facts stated therein. 
In the present case, the prosecu-
. 'on 'hould have anticipated that there would be some delay, in the 
G 
1I1aiy1il by the Public Analyst and in the sending of bis report, and eonse-
quootly, the elementary precaution of addios a preservative to the sample 
given to the respondent should have been taken by the Food Inspector. 
If such a precaution had been taken, the sample given to the respondent 
would have been available for analysis by the Director, for • oeriod of 
four mo11ths; and the orosecution could have been launched. after receiv· 
ing the Public Analysrs report. well within time to enable the respandent 
to e.ercise his right under s. 13 (2). The respondent was therefore denied 
H 
a valuable right in defending himself. due to the inordinate 
delay 
in 
launching the prosecution, ad was prejudiced in bis defence. [119 H; 
120 A-B. F-H; 121 A] 
MUNICIPAL CORP. v. GHISA RAM (Bhargava. /.) 
117 
A 
CRIMrNAL APPELLA1E JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 194 
of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 9, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Circuit Bench at 
Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 30-D of 1964. 
B 
H. R. Gokhale, K. K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
appellant. 
Frank Anthony. Ghanshyam Dass, Jitendra Sharma 
and 
V. P. Chaudhuri, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. The 
respondent, Ghisa Ram. 
is a Halwai 
dealing in milk and milk products, including Dahi, and holds a 
licence for running his shop in Defence Colony in New Delhi. On 
September 20, 1961, the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corpora-
tion of Delhi visited the shop of the respondent and took a sample 
of curd of cow's milk for the purpose of testing whc<her there wa.> 
any adulteration. The curd was churned and divided into three 
equal parts. Each part was put in a separate bottle and sealed by 
the Food Inspector. One of the bottles containing the samp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.