Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: fac 219 in 17. In A Judgment Titled As Kanshi Nath vs . State, 2005(2) Fac 219, on 1 July, 2010Matching Fragments
C). On the other hand, Ld. SPP argued that the accused challenged the report of Public Analyst after considering the same as erroneous and moved an application for getting analysed the second counterpart by the Director, CFL. Therefore, he cannot again rely upon the report of the Public Analyst and as such report of Public Analyst cannot be looked into for deciding whether the sample was representative or not.
17. In a judgment titled as Kanshi Nath Vs. State, 2005(2) FAC 219, Delhi High Court , it was held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, as under;-