Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Ram Dayal, a sweetmeat seller, against his conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling laddus adulterated with unpermitted colour. The Food Inspector had purchased a sample on September 1, 1965, and the Public Analyst's report dated September 10, 1965 declared the laddus adulterated due to unpermitted colour and other deviations. The trial court convicted the accused on October 17, 1966, sentencing him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Municipal Corporation sought enhancement of the sentence before the Sessions Judge, who referred the matter to the High Court, which enhanced the sentence to the statutory minimum of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000. The accused contended that his application to summon the Public Analyst for cross-examination had been wrongly rejected, causing prejudice. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not apply and that the accused should have followed the procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act by sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. In the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel argued that the accused had a valuable right to cross-examine the Public Analyst, regardless of the Section 13(2) procedure. The State and Union of India argued that no such right existed because Section 13(5) makes the Public Analyst’s report admissible and Section 13(2) provides the exclusive method of challenge, making the Director’s report conclusive. The Supreme Court held that where a certificate is not made final and conclusive by law, the party against whom it is tendered may rebut the facts or cross-examine the expert. The court must consider a request for cross-examination on merits, though it may reject the prayer for valid reasons such as vexation or delay. On facts, the Court found that the accused had not shown why cross-examination was necessary. He could have claimed in his examination under Section 342 of the old Code that the colour used was a permitted one, but he did not. The application appeared to be designed to delay the case. Consequently, the refusal did not vitiate the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Expert Evidence - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 13(2), 13(5); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 510 - Right to cross-examine Public Analyst - The court held that where a certificate is not made conclusive evidence by statute, the party against whom it is produced may rebut the facts by other evidence or require the expert's presence for cross-examination; the court must consider such a prayer on merits but may reject it for good and sufficient reasons such as vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice (Paras 1-3).
B) The court further held that on the facts of the case, the accused failed to show any specific ground necessitating cross-examination, he did not disclose that the colour used was a permitted one, and the application appeared to be made to delay the proceedings; therefore, the refusal to summon the Public Analyst did not vitiate the trial (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine the Public Analyst under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, particularly when the procedure under section 13(2) for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory has not been followed, and if refusal of such cross-examination vitiates the trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that while the accused has a right to cross-examine the Public Analyst when the certificate is not made conclusive by statute, the court may reject a request for cross-examination if it is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. On the facts, the accused had failed to show why cross-examination was necessary, and the application was rightly rejected as it was aimed at delaying the proceedings. The conviction and sentence were upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Where certificates are not made final and conclusive evidence
- party may rebut facts or cross-examine expert
- court bound to consider cross-examination prayer on merits but may reject for valid reasons like vexation or delay
- no absolute right to cross-examination if procedure under section 13(2) not followed.
Case Details
1969 LawText (SC) (10) 40
Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1968
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, S.M. Sikri, G.K. Mitter
Citation not available, 1970 AIR 366, 1970 SCR (2) 682, 1970 SCC (3) 35
Hardev Singh, Bishan Narain, B.P. Maheshwari, L.M. Singhvi, R.N. Sachthey
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated sweets.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside his conviction and sentence, or alternatively reduction of sentence, and contended that the refusal to summon the Public Analyst for cross-examination had vitiated the proceedings.
Filing Reason
A Food Inspector found the appellant selling laddus with unpermitted colouring matter. The Public Analyst's report confirmed adulteration. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, and the High Court enhanced the sentence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending procedural unfairness regarding cross-examination of the Public Analyst.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs. 1,000. On revision by the Municipal Corporation, the High Court enhanced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000, rejecting the accused's contention on cross-examination.
Issues
Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine the Public Analyst under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, despite not having followed the procedure under Section 13(2) for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory.
Whether the refusal of the trial court to summon the Public Analyst for cross-examination vitiated the proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the refusal to call the Public Analyst for cross-examination caused grave prejudice and vitiated the trial, asserting a valuable right to cross-examine the expert.
The respondents contended that Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to Public Analysts and that the accused's only remedy was to invoke Section 13(2) of the Act, which would make the Director's report conclusive and supersede the Public Analyst's report.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a statute does not make a certificate conclusive evidence, the party against whom it is tendered has a right to rebut the facts by other evidence or by cross-examining the expert who gave it. However, the court must consider an application for cross-examination on merits and may reject it if it is made for vexation, delay, or to defeat the ends of justice. In the present case, the accused failed to justify the need for cross-examination, and the refusal did not vitiate the trial.
Judgment Excerpts
Where certificates are not made final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, it will be open to the party against whom certificates are given either to rebut the facts stated therein by his own or other evidence or to require the expert to be produced for cross examination which prayer the court is bound to consider on merits in granting or rejecting it. The court may reject the prayer for good and sufficient reasons such as for instance where it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
No attempt was made to establish why the evidence was required and as to the specific point which needed to be elucidated. The accused knew what colouring matter he added; he could have easily said that that colour was one of the permitted colours; but he did not say so in his examination under s. 34 nor did he produce any evidence of those whom he employed as to the colouring matter which was added. The application was made more to delay the disposal of the case.
Procedural History
On September 1, 1965, the Food Inspector purchased a sample of laddus from the appellant's shop. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst, whose report dated September 10, 1965 indicated adulteration with unpermitted colour. A complaint was filed, and on October 17, 1966, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Municipal Corporation filed a revision for enhancement of sentence before the Sessions Judge, who referred the matter to the High Court recommending the statutory minimum of six months. The High Court enhanced the sentence to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, rejecting the accused's contention regarding cross-examination. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on October 7, 1969.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: 7, 9, 11, 16, 2(i), 13(2), 13(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: 510, 342
- Constitution of India: 134(1)(c)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 272-276
