1. Heard finally at motion hearing stage with the consent of both the parties.

2. This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for giving a direction to trial Court to call public analyst in the Court so that he can be cross-examined by the petitioner-accused, who is facing trial under section 7 (I) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 before CJM, Indore.

3. Short facts of the case are that on 14.8.2001 Food Inspector, took sample of mango pickle from the shop of present petitioner, after following the procedure prescribed in the Food Adulteration Act. One part of the sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Bhopal. Public Analyst in his report found that the sample is misbranded and on the basis of this report a private complaint was filed against the petitioner before learned CJM. At the stage of defence evidence present petitioner moved an application for calling Public Analyst for cross-examination under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This application was rejected by learned CJM by order dated 16.3.2004. That order of rejection was assailed by the petitioner before XIIth Additional Sessions Judge By way of Cr.R. No. 811/06, learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 20.5.2005 dismissed the revision petition, therefore, petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer for exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to correct the mistake committed by two Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Harish Kumar submitted that as per the report of the Public Analyst sample of mango pickle was as per prescribed standard given in Appendix A. 16.16. He has further submitted that the percentage of fruit and vegetable in the produce was more than 50% and the percentage of oil was also more than 10% and, therefore, as per report of the Public Analyst itself sample was as per the prescribed standard. He has further submitted that Public Analyst without any further investigation or without mentioning any fact to that effect opined in the report that the sample was misbranded. When Public Analyst was saying that sample is misbranded then it was his duty to show that as to how the sample was misbranded. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in such circumstances it has become necessary to cross-examine Public Analyst so that the basis of his opinion can be brought on record.

5. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards copy of the lable pasted on the bottle of mango pickle, which shows that no artificial colour has been used in the pickle. It also shows that there is no mention to the effect that the pickle contains copper or minerals etc.

6. Learned Panel lawyer submitted that the report of public analyst is admissible evidence and is a conclusive proof of the facts stated therein. The petitioner has never moved any application for calling the public analyst for cross examination at the time of prosecution evidence and by not moving such application at the appropriate stage he has waived his right and. Therefore, the application moved under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on behalf of petitioner was rightly rejected by the two Courts below and no interference is called for by way of this petition.

7. The impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge perused. The copy of the report of public analyst and copy of the lable pasted on the mango pickle manufactured by petitioner is also perused. Copy of the report of public analyst shows that except stating that the sample is misbranded nothing else has been mentioned in the report to show as to how the sample has been stated as misbranded. Definition of "misbranded" has been given in section 2 (ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which reads as under:

"Section (2) (ix) "misbranded" -- an article of food