LexRAM DAYAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-682 RAM DAYAL A v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR. October 7, 1969 [S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] B Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Public Anolyst-Right to cross examine though procedure prescribed by s. 13(2) not gone through. The appellant was convicted for selling food with iinpermissible colouring matter. He contended that as his request for summoning the Public Analyst for cross.examination had not been acceded to he had c been prejudiced and as such the entire' proceeding against him were vitiated. The -High Court rejected the contention on the ground that s. 510 of the Code of Criminal Proceciure had no application in that it only dealt with the experts mentioned therein. The Court also observed that when the accused desired to challenge the report of the Public Analyst under the Act, he had to follow the procedure provided in s. 13(2) for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory whose report would bo final and conclusive. D Dismissing the appeal, HELD: Where certificates are not made final ~nd conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it will be open to the party against whom Certificates are .civen either to rebut the facts stated therein by his own or other evidence or to require the expert to be produced for cross exa- mination which prayer the court is bound to consider on merits in grant- E ing or rejecting it. The court may reject the plrayer for good and suffi- cient reasons such as for instance where it is made for the -purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. [685 B-C; F-G] The present case is not a fit case for interference. No attempt was made to establish why the evidence was required and as to the specific point which needed to be elucidated. The accused knew what colouring matter he added; he could have easily said that that colour was F one of the permitted colours; but he did not sav so in his examination under s. 34 nor did he plroduce any evidence of those whom he employed as to the colouring matter which was added. The application was made more to delay the disposal of the case. [ 687 BJ Mangaldas Raghavji v. State, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 894 and Sukhmal Gupta v. Th• Corporation of Calcutta, Cr. A. No. 161/66 dated 3-5-68, referred ~ G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1968. Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 6, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision.No. 189 of 1967. Hardev Singh, for the appellant. ]Jishan Narain and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. I. L. M. Singhvi and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No. 2. H .. ' I A RAM DAYAL v. MUNIC. CORP. DEL!Il (Reddy, J.) 683 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jagamnohau Reddy, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Delhi High Court under Art. 134(l)(c) of the Constitution is against its judgment which confirmed the conviction of the accused of an offence under s. 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinatter referred to as the Act) and against the en.· hancement of the sentence of imprisonment from the one till the rising of the court to six months R.1. which is the minimum pres- cribed under the Act together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo six months R.I. c The appellant is a sweetmeat seller. It is alleged that on September I, 1965, Shri B. S. Sethi, Food Inspector appointed by the Central Government under s. 9 of the Act visited his shop and found that the appellant was selling coloured laddus. The Food Inspector purchased 1,500 grams of these laddus by way of a sam- ple by paying him Rs. 9 / · as the price thereof. This sample was subdivided into three parts and was put into three separate bottles as required under s. 11 of the Act. One bottle was given to the accused, another was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by the Food Inspector. The sample sent to the Public Analyst was analysed and a report was received from him on Sep- tember 10, 1965 to the effect that the laddus were adulterated with unpermitted colour. Thereupon a complaint was filed against the accused and he was convicted by the magistrate on October 17, 1966 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo six months' R.I. It would appear that the Municipal Corporation filed before the Sessions Judge a revisi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.