Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The present case is based on the findings of PA as given in report Ex. PW-1/F. It is to be understood that report of chemical expert is admissible in evidence under section 293 CrPC without formal examination of such expert. As far as this report is concerned, the contents and findings therein have not been disputed by the defence, though it is claimed that such findings are wrong on account of incorrect sampling methodology. It is nowhere the defence of the accused that the PA had adopted an incorrect method of analysis or there was some other mistake in the report. No request was made by the accused to cross- examine the PA when this option was available, so as to question her on the testing methodology adopted. The report shows that Milk fat content on dry weight basis was found to be 27.66%, which should have been not less than 30.0%. It is nowhere the stand of the accused that some improper or unreliable method was used to analyse the milk fat content. The office of the PA maintains all the details of the methods used, the analytical values, the calculations, etc on the basis if which the final report is given. The final report so given is in the format as prescribed under the Rules (as the Rules existed at that time). No attempt was made by the accused to call for those records or question the PA as to the validity, details or intricacies of the test methodology. Even when the report of chemical expert is admissible in evidence without formal proof under section 293 CrPC, it can always be questioned on any point on which they are silent. If the accused wishes such report to be clarified or questioned, he has an option available to him to apply to the court under section 293 CrPC and cross-examine the PA. Despite such option being available, if the accused fails to exercise the same, he cannot then chose to question the report on assumptions, presumptions and hypothesis, without according any opportunity to the examiner to clarify or explain the things. The court cannot impose its views and refuse to disbelieve a report of PA, without giving the analyst any opportunity to explain any point on which the report is silent. In the present case, the report of PA has never been questioned. In such a case, there is no reason why the accused did not opt to cross- examine the PA and ask her about the method used by her to detect milk fat content, if he was genuinely aggrieved by contents of her report. The accused cannot be allowed to take benefit of his failure to apply and cross- examine the CFL when this opportunity was available to him. Reliance can be placed on judgements titled as Richpal v. State (Delhi Administration) [1988 (2) DLT 422] and Mohd. Hussain v. State (Delhi) [1989 (1) FAC 206], wherein it was observed that "the contents of the CFSL report have to be treated as correct and in case defence wanted to challenge the said report, the defence should have prayed to the trial court for calling the expert with the record for the purposes of cross- examination to enable the defence to prove that the contents of CFSL report are in any manner incorrect."

54. As far as analysis by the PA and launching of the prosecution on her report is concerned it is to be seen that as per the scheme of the Act the first analysis of the sample/food product is done by the Public Analyst in terms of section 8, 11 and 13 of the Act. The Public Analyst is appointed by the Central or State government by way of notification in the official gazette. Unless the report of Public Analyst is superseded by that of Director, CFL, this report holds good for all purposes and remains effective and valid and can be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. The Ld. Defence counsel also argued that PA Smt. Mohini Srivastava was not validly appointed as Public Analyst and hence could not analyze the sample. Though PA was not sought to be cross-examined under section 293 CrPC to explain the facts to this , yet Ld. SPP has shown the orders dated 31.05.1985, 22.04.1999 as well as 26.05.2005 bearing no. F.41/51/05-H&FW whereby the Hon. Lt. Governor of the Government of NCT of Delhi had appointed Smt. Mohini Srivastava to the post of PA with effect from 31.05.1985. Hence on the day of giving report of analysis of the sample, she was a duly / validly appointed Public Analyst.

57. Therefore, on the day of analysis of the sample in question, the Public Analyst was competent to analyze the sample and use the method she deemed fit for the purpose of analysis of the sample. There is nothing to show that any method adopted by her was not a sure or reliable test, particularly when she was not even sought to be cross-examined by applying under section 293 CrPC on this point.

58. As far as Pepsico's case (supra) is concerned, the judgement cannot be read in isolation or selectively. It has to be read as a whole keeping in mind the purpose and the scheme of the Act which intends to safeguard the public at large from the evil/ menace of food adulteration. The relevant portion of the judgement relied upon by the Ld. Defence counsel reads as: