Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and carefully perused the evidence and record of the case.

9. The counsel for the revision-petitioner, at the very outset, contended that the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, acted against the provisions of Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by not appending his signatures, on the deposition of Mahant Lal, Government Food Inspector (PW-1), recorded before the framing of charge, as also after framing the charge. He further contended, that under these circumstances, the statement of Mahant Lal, Government Food Inspector (PW-1), could not take into consideration, as the correctness thereof, could not be vouchsafed. He further contended that even the Appellate Court, failed to take into consideration, this important aspect of the matter, and wrongly relied upon the unsigned statement of the aforesaid witness. He further contended that once the unsigned statement of this witness, by the Presiding Officer, is taken off the record, the case of the prosecution, becomes highly doubtful. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, appears to be correct. The relevant provision, with regard to the recording of evidence in a warrant case, before a Magistrate, is Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:

(5) After test or analysis, the certificate thereof shall be supplied forthwith to the sender in Form II.

(6) The fees payable in respect of such a certificate shall be (Rs. 1,000/-) per sample of food analysed.

(7) Certificates issued under these rules by the Laboratory shall be signed by the Director.

(8) The fee payable in, respect of analysis of samples of imported food analysed in any designated laboratory shall be Rs. 3,000 per sample payable by the importer.

11-A. Rule 4(4) of the Rules ibid reveals that on receipt of package containing a sample for analysis, the Director or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression, received separately, and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. Such an exercise could only be undertaken, by the concerned Officer of the Directorate of Central Food Laboratory, had the sample impression of the seal been sent to him. In the instant case, on 29.3.1997, when the accused appeared in the Court, he moved an application under Section 13(2) of the Act, for sending the second portion of the sample, to the Central Food Laboratory. Notice of this application was issued to the Local Health Authority for 25.4.1997. On 25.4.1997, one Rohtas, Clerk, Local Health Authority, appeared and brought a portion of the sample. His statement was recorded, but it was not signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the statement of Rajinder Kumar, accused, was recorded, but the same also does not bear the signatures of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for sending one portion of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, and return of the third portion of the sample to Rohtas, Clerk, in the office of the Local Health Authority, Rohtak. This order also does not bear the signatures of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nothing was recorded, in this order that sample impression of the seal be separately sent through special messenger in a sealed cover or in a registered cover. No authenticity to the alleged statements of Rohtas and Rajinder Kumar, as also the order dated 25.4.1997, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, could be attached, the same being unsigned. The possibility of incorporating the statements of Rohtas, Clerk, in the office of the Local Health Authority, Rohtak, Rajinder Kumar, accused, and the order dated 25.4.1997, later on could not be ruled out. No doubt, a presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial acts, but only if the same are performed, in a proper manner, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and the rules. Such a presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the unsigned statements and the order dated 25.4.1997 referred to above, are sufficient to rebut the presumption. This also exhibits the performance of Judicial functions, by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in a perfunctory manner. Had from the order dated 25.4.1997, it been evident that sample impression of the seal was separately sent and had sample impression of the seal so sent, been retained in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, it would have been said that the same was sent and compared by the Central Food Laboratory.