Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAMESHWAR DAYAL
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Decide on April 30, 1992
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Non-Supply of Public Analyst's Report - Prejudice to Accused
Fact of the Case:
The sample taken under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was found to be adulterated. The accused was not supplied with the report of the Public Analyst as required under Section 13(2) of the Act, preventing him from getting his own sample examined by the central Laboratory.
Finding of the Court:
The High court rejected the plea on the ground that the objection was not raised before the trial court, but the Supreme Court found that serious prejudice had been caused to the appellant due to the non-supply of the Public Analyst's report, and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Issues: Non-supply of Public Analyst's report, Prejudice to the accused, Rejection of plea by the High Court
Ratio Decidendi: The failure to supply the Public Analyst's report as required under the Act caused serious prejudice to the accused, and the objection could be raised at a later stage if the material on record supports the same.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.
( 1 ) THE matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The sample taken was found to be adulterated. On the record it appears that the report of the Public Analyst is not supplied to the accused as required under Section 13 (2 of the Act. Consequently, he could not get his own sample examined by the central Laboratory. It is a very valuable right given to him. Rules also provide that such a report should be supplied to the accused within a certain period. The question arose in a similar case where this rule is mandatory or directory. We need not launch into such a discussion in this case. We are satisfied that serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant because of non-supply of the Public Analysts report as required under Section 13 (2 of the Act. The High court having noticed this, yet rejected the plea on the mere ground that such an objection was not raised before the trial court. It is not a question of an objection, but it is a question of prejudice. Such a point can be raised even at a later stage if material on record supports the same. In the result the conviction and sentence are set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
