Case: Charanji Lal Vs. State Of Punjab

or fastened, or due to various other causes including breakage of the container, or because decomposition has occurred, or it may be lost in transit. The word "damaged" in the collocation of the words "lost or damaged" occurring in sub-s. (2) of s. 11 and in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 must be construed in furtherance of the object and purpose of inserting these provisions. The whole purpose of depositing two parts of the sample with the Local (Health) Authority is that if one of the parts of the sample is lost or damaged for any reason whatever, the remaining part may still be available for analysis. There is a conflict of opinion between the High Courts and also within the same High Court as to the construction of the word "damaged" used in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act, some of which we have been able to trace out. The Punjab &Haryana High Court has itself taken two contrary views, one in the instant case, and the other in Darshan Lal v. Stat e of Punjab(1). The view of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Prakashs case, supra, and that of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in Darshan Lals case, supra, is that the meaning of the word "damaged" occurring in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 must be controlled by the context and it means "damaged due to the container not being properly sealed or fastened". The view to the contrary has been expressed by the Delhi High Court in State v. Joginder Lal Kapoor(2) and by the Punjab &Haryana High Court in the present case that the word "damaged" used in the proviso must be given a wider meaning as to include "damaged due to any cause, including decomposition". In Joginder Lal Kapoors case, supra the Delhi High Court observed that the loss or damage contemplated in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act must occur after the sample is despatched for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, and added:"A sample can get damaged for a number of reasons including breakage, Leakage and decomposition. The possibility of a sample getting decomposed because of delay in transit cannot to ruled out. In my view the word "damage" used in sub-s. (2C) has to be given a wider meaning and it would include damage of any nature including decomposition but the damage must occur after the sample is despatched." 7. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words &Phrases, 3rd edn., p. 710, para 9, it is stated: "You `damage a thing if you render it imperfect or inoperative". Decomposition would render a sample useless and of no value for analysis. While the Delhi High Court is right in holding in Joginder Lal Kapoors case, supra, that the word "damaged" used in sub-s. (2C ) has to be given a wider meaning, it is not possible for us to subscribe to the view that the loss or damage must occur after the sample is despatched for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. We are inclined to think that the word "damaged" is wide enough to mean "damaged due to any cause whatever, including decomposition". To restrict the meaning of the phrase `lost or damaged would be to defeat the object for which the new s. 13 was inserted by Parliament by Act 34 of 1976. I t is not necessary that loss should take place only after the actual despatch of the part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory has commenced. From the nature of things, the loss contemplated by the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 must take place after the court has directed one part of the sample to be despatched to the Central Food Laboratory, but the course of such despatch is not required to be confined to the period of actual transit. Even if that part of the sample is lost after the court has directed it to be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and before the actual transit has commenced, that part of the sample would be "lost" within the meaning of the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. So far as the damage to that part of the sample is concerned, if damage in the sense of decomposition were to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking place during the course of transit, it would frustrate the very object of Parliament in enacting the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. Decomposition is not something which always takes place suddenly or immediately. It is a process which in some cases may be slow and in some cases quick. Decomposition cannot be noticed or ascertained by the Court when it inspects the part of the sample under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 to ascertain whether the mark and seal or fastening are intact and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, not tempered with, before despatching that part to the Central Food Laboratory. Even with the mark and seal intact, and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, not tampered with, the sample might have already decomposed or decomposing might have already commenced. Whether a s ample has decomposed or not can only be ascertained when the sealed container is opened in the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Thus, while from the nature of things loss or external damage to the sample must take place after the Court directs under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 despatch of the part of the sample, damage in the sense of decomposition of that part of the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory may take place either before or after the Courts directs it s despatch to the Central Food Laboratory. In either event, that part of the sample would be "damaged" within the meaning of that expression in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In Strouds Judicial Dictionary of Words &Phrases, 3rd edn., p. 710, para 9, it is stated: "You `damage a thing if you render it imperfect or inoperative". Decomposition would render a sample useless and of no value for analysis. While the Delhi High Court is right in holding in Joginder Lal Kapoors case, supra, that the word "damaged" used in sub-s. (2C ) has to be given a wider meaning, it is not possible for us to subscribe to the view that the loss or damage must occur after the sample is despatched for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. We are inclined to think that the word "damaged" is wide enough to mean "damaged due to any cause whatever, including decomposition". To restrict the meaning of the phrase `lost or damaged would be to defeat the object for which the new s. 13 was inserted by Parliament by Act 34 of 1976. I t is not necessary that loss should take place only after the actual despatch of the part of the sample to the Central Food Laboratory has commenced. From the nature of things, the loss contemplated by the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 must take place after the court has directed one part of the sample to be despatched to the Central Food Laboratory, but the course of such despatch is not required to be confined to the period of actual transit. Even if that part of the sample is lost after the court has directed it to be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory and before the actual transit has commenced, that part of the sample would be "lost" within the meaning of the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. So far as the damage to that part of the sample is concerned, if damage in the sense of decomposition were to be interpreted to mean decomposition taking place during the course of transit, it would frustrate the very object of Parliament in enacting the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13. Decomposition is not something which always takes place suddenly or immediately. It is a process which in some cases may be slow and in some cases quick. Decomposition cannot be noticed or ascertained by the Court when it inspects the part of the sample under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 to ascertain whether the mark and seal or fastening are intact and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, not tempered with, before despatching that part to the Central Food Laboratory. Even with the mark and seal intact, and the signature or thumb-impression, as the case may be, not tampered with, the sample might have already decomposed or decomposing might have already commenced. Whether a s ample has decomposed or not can only be ascertained when the sealed container is opened in the Central Food Laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Thus, while from the nature of things loss or external damage to the sample must take place after the Court directs under sub-s. (2B) of s. 13 despatch of the part of the sample, damage in the sense of decomposition of that part of the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory may take place either before or after the Courts directs it s despatch to the Central Food Laboratory. In either event, that part of the sample would be "damaged" within the meaning of that expression in the proviso to sub-s. (2C) of s. 13 of the Act.