1. By way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the judgment and order of dated 12th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, 4th Fast Track Court Judge, Rajpipla in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1999 confirming the judgment and order dated 30th April, 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Walia in Criminal Case No.1505 of 1994 held the applicant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 16(1) (a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and also imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that the applicant is the owner of grocery shop at Walia and the complainant is Food Inspector. It is the case of the prosecution that that on 03rd December, 1993 at about 14.50 hours visited the shop of the applicant with his Helper and purchased nine packets of Sagar Glucose Biscuit after paying consideration as sample for analysis. It is also the case of the prosecution that after following due procedure of sealing, the sample was sent to the office of Food and Drug Laboratory, Vadodara for analysis. On examination, it was found that the said sample was not as per the standard prescribed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules and the same was adulterated. Therefore, after following the due procedure, complaint was filed against the present applicant in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Walia for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(5) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
3. Thereafter the learned Magistrate issued summons to the applicant and then charge was framed; however, the applicant denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial against the applicant commenced. After hearing both the sides, the learned Magistrate vide his impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 30th April, 1999 convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 7(1)(5) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Gujarat Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as stated above.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the applicant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.05 of 1999 in the Court of Sessions Judge at Bharuch. After appreciating the evidence produced on record and after perusing the judgment and order of trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, Fourth Fast Track Court Judge at Rajpipla, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 12th January, 2004 confirmed the judgment and order dated 30th April, 1999 passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal of the present applicant.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with both the impugned judgment and orders of conviction, the applicant has preferred the present revision application.
6. Heard Mr.Tulshi R. Savani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. Mr.Savani, learned counsel for the applicant, states that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicant before the Courts below. He has contended that judgment and orders of both the Courts below are contrary to law, facts and evidence of the case. He has contended that the applicant was convicted only on the basis of report of analysis. The said report is not clear and complete. In the said report complete scientific data was not given for concluding about the adulteration in the sample. Thus, when report of the public analyst is not clear, complete and when there is no procedure prescribed for coming to the conclusion, the said report cannot be considered and on the basis of the said report, the applicant cannot be convicted. He has further contended that the report at Exhibit 67 contained different dates. The date on which the report is prepared, is not signed on the same day. The report is prepared on 08th December, 1993 and is signed on 27th December, 1993. Therefore, the said report cannot be made base to convict the present applicant. He has further contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in exhibiting the Report at Exhibit 67 as the report is produced on record after the closing pursis filed by the prosecution and therefore, the said document cannot be exhibited and the applicant cannot be convicted on the basis of the said report. He has further contended that when the witness is not examined and when the helper of the complainant is not fully supported the case of the prosecution, the applicant cannot be convicted. He has also contended that the case is of the 1994 and the applicant is a small businessman of a small village. He, therefore, contended that looking to the facts of the case, evidence on record and circumstances, both the impugned judgment and orders of conviction are required to be quashed and set aside.
8. As against this, Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment and orders of conviction passed by both the Courts below. He has contended that the Judgment and Orders of conviction passed by both the Courts below are just, proper and legal and need not require any interference. Both the Courts below have passed the orders after properly appreciating the evidence produced before them. He has further contended that the complainant-Food Inspector has followed the proper procedure while collecting the sample, etc. The sample was seized and sealed properly. Mr.Jani has also contended that the applicant has never made any attempt before the Courts below to establish his case that the report Exhibit 67 cannot be exhibited and therefore, on the basis of the said report, the applicant cannot be convicted. He has also contended that the applicant has never made any try before the Courts below to cross-examine the public analyst. He has also contended that both the Courts below have awarded minimum sentence. He, therefore, contended that the orders of conviction passed by both the Courts below are required to be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court.
9. I have gone through the orders of conviction passed by both the Courts below. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the Courts below and also considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties.
10. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that report Exhibit 67 is not exhibited and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration and/or on the basis of the same, the applicant cannot be convicted is concerned, I have perused Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:
“293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject- matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:-
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of- Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director 1[ , Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government.”
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under:
“35. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty.- An entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.”
Looking to both the above said Sections, I am of the opinion that the said report Exhibit 67 can be considered at the time of deciding the trial. Therefore, neither the learned Magistrate nor the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made any error in believing the said report Exhibit 67.
it is also very clear that though the applicant was given opportunity to analyze the sample at Central Food Laboratory, he had not sent the sample for analysis at Central Food Laboratory. It also appears from the papers that at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the applicant was asked as to what he wants to state regarding report Exhibit 67, he uttered only that the report is false. Nothing else was submitted by the applicant regarding report Exhibit 67. Even the applicant has not produced on record purchase bill and from where he has purchased the said Glucose Biscuit. The complainant-Food Inspector has properly followed the mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The applicant has failed to prove any contrary view to that effect.
11. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have passed absolutely just and proper order and is not required to be interfered with by this Court.
12. In view of above, present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, 4th Fast Track Court, Rajpipla in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 1999 confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30th April, 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Walia in Criminal Case No.1505 of 1994 are hereby confirmed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. The applicant is, therefore, directed to surrender himself before the Jail Authority to undergo remaining sentence, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this writ, failing which the trial Court concerned is directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the applicant to effect his arrest. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup