The admissibility of a report from a chemical examiner as evidence without the examiner being examined in court is governed by S.510 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is not necessary for the report to state the method adopted by the examiner for examination or analysis.

1. This case raises a short question of law, namely, whether the report of a chemical examiner on a matter duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report, in the course of any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure can be used as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, without the chemical examiner being examined in Court.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, Ponnani, in C. C.No. 875 of 1965 for the offence under S.8 (1) (g) of the Prohibition Act, 1950 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The charge against him was that on 18-8-1965 at 7.00 a.m. he was found in possession of a mud pot containing three edangazhies of fermented wash fit for distillation of arrack. A sample of the content of the mud pot was sent for analysis and report to the chemical examiner to Government of Kerala. After analysis he sent a report dated 18-11-1965 stating that the sample of the liquid contained 15% by volume of ethyl alcohol. This report was marked in the trial court as Ext. P-2. The finding of the trial court that the material found in the possession of the petitioner is an article for the manufacture of liquor depends only on the evidence furnished by Ex. P-2. The petitioner's contention that Ext. P-2 does not give sufficient data and that it cannot be used in evidence against him was rejected by both the courts below.

3. In support of the above contention, the petitioner's learned counsel relied on the decision in Suleman Usman Memon v. The State of Gujarat (AIR. 1961 Gujarat 120). This was a case which arose under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The certificate issued by the chemical examiner in that case stated that the concentration of alcohol in the sample of blood taken from the accused was 0.191 per cent. The learned judge in that case rejected the contention of the accused that certificate of the chemical examiner cannot be received in evidence without the chemical examiner being examined in court and made available for cross-examination by the opposite party. He, however, held that the opinion of the chemical examiner was merely a piece of evidence on the point regarding concentration of alcohol in the blood of the accused, that the report must disclose the factual data on which his opinion was based and the reasons in support of the same, and that reliance cannot be placed on the report for the purpose of convicting the accused, if it does not contain such data. The certificate of the chemical examiner was rejected on the ground that it showed only the percentage of alcohol in the blood of the accused and did not disclose the method adopted by him for the examination of the blood.

4. S.510 of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:

"Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."

This section does not require the chemical examiner to state the method adopted by him for the examination or analysis of the matter, or the reasons in support of his opinion. These are matters left to the chemical examiner, and the Statute has prima facie placed reliance on him for the correctness of these things. Sub-section (2) of S.510 contains a provision to test the correctness of the report by examining the chemical examiner in court. This may be done suo mote or on the application of the prosecution or the accused. That shows that the report may be used as evidence without the chemical examiner being examined in court. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the interpretation given to S.510 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the High Court of Gujarat in the above case.

5. The decision in Suleman Usman Memon v. The State of Gujarat AIR. 1961 Gujarat 1