CR.A/259/1998 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 259 of 1998 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 260 of 1998 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 261 of 1998 With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 265 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KANTIBHAI MOTIBHAI LIMBACHIYA - Appellant(s) Versus AMRATLAL NYALCHAND SHAH & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIL C PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, Ms.Archana Raval, APP for Opponent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 29/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/259/1998 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are directed against the various orders whereby the accused in the Criminal Cases filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 have been acquitted only on the ground that the analysis reports submitted in evidence were not signed on the day they were prepared. The trial Courts followed the orders and judgments 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. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sunil Patel for the appellant and Ms.Archana Raval, learned APP for the respondent no.2 – State. Though served, none appears for respondent no.1. 3. At the time of hearing, it has been pointed out by Mr.Patel regarding the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Vishramdas Virumal, reported in 2000(4) GLR 2884 wherein the judgments and orders of this Court relied upon by the trial Court were 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 under Sec.13(1) of the Prevention of Food CR.A/259/1998 3/4 JUDGMENT 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.” 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant having relied upon the aforesaid observations made by the Division Bench that the orders impugned in these appeals are required to be quashed and set aside and the matters are 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 advocate for the appellant has also cited the decision in the matter of State of Gujarat V/s Uttamchand Hathichand Shah and others, reported in 2007(2) GLH 249 in support of his submissions. On the other hand, learned APP Ms.Raval also supports the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant. 5. 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 CR.A/259/1998 4/4 JUDGMENT or the accused. In this view of the matter, it is apparently clear that the trial Courts have committed serious error while passing the impugned orders. 6. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. In case R & P are received in this Court, they will be returned to the respective trial Courts forthwith and the trial Courts shall proceed with the original criminal cases in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. (Sharad D.Dave,J) pathan