Court affirmed power under Section 311 to summon witnesses for just decision-making; delay in trial deemed non-prejudicial to rights of the accused.

JUDGEMENT

1.Abbasali Taherali Vora, applicant (original accused), has filed this revision application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgement and order dated 25.5.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalol, in Criminal Case No. 204 of 1989 below Exh. 101. The learned Magistrate thereby directed that the public analyst be orally examined as per Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code .

2.The facts of this case are as under:

2.1In this case from the record it appears that on 20.7.1988 sample of black pepper was purchased from Abbasali Taherali Vora, the present applicant. The said sample was sent to laboratory somewhere in August, 1988 and after examination public analyst Baroda sent his report on 22.8.1988 which is produced at Exh. 72. 2.2From the record it appears that somewhere in March, 1989 sanction was granted to prosecute the accused and case was filed bearing Criminal Case No. 204 of 1989. 2.3In March 1989 one private complaint was filed by Trilokkumar Babubhai Bhaskar, Food Inspector, having the office at Food and Drug Control Administration, Godhra, against the present applicant accused for the alleged offences under Section 2 (i-a), (a), (m) read with Section 7 (1)(5) and punishable under Section 16 (1)(a) (1) (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 . In the said complaint it was alleged that the present applicant is mixing of black pepper (Kalamari).

2.4Thereafter, on 21.7.1995 charge was framed. 2.5Examination of original complainant P.W. No. 1 was started on 2.4.1998 which is produced at Exh. 59 and his cross-examination was completed on 11.2.1999. Prosecution witness No. 2 Mansingh Panch was examined at Exh. 92 on 10.9.1999. The Exh.. 72 was proved and exhibited in the deposition of P.W. No. 1 somewhere in April, 1998.

2.6Thereafter the prosecution examined the following witnesses and produced documents as under:

1. Ex. 59 deposition of original complainant 2. Ex. 60 the copy of the Gazette where, the complainant's name is published.

3. Ex. 61 form showing the purchase of 450 grams of black pepper on 20.7.1988 4. Ex. 62, the bill showing the sale of goods to the Food Inspector.

5. Ex. 63 showing the receipt of the amount by the accused.

6. Ex. 64, alleged to be three bottles wherein the sample was taken. The seal and the label was applied for and this procedure was recorded and the copy was produced and the same is at Ex. 64. 7. Ex. 65, is showing the collection and the seal number of the seal, slip, cotton thread, cross and whatever is done in presence of the witness.

8. Ex. 66, that one specimen was sent along with the memorandum copy in the sealed cover to the Baroda Laboratory, Public Analyst and the said being received by the Public Analyst, Baroda.

9. Ex. 67, the copy of the memorandum 10. Ex. 68, the receipt of the Public Analyst, Baroda.

11. Ex. 69 and 70 are the other two specimen kept in tact.

12. Ex. 72 is the copy showing the result of the Analyst.

13. Ex. 74, shows the round seal of the Public Analyst, Baroda.

14. Ex. 75, is the sanction for the prosecution from the Nadiad Office.

15. Ex. 76, is the copy given to the accused. 16. Ex. 77, is the postal receipt of the same. 17. Ex. 92 Examine of witness Manish Raising 2.7After completion of prosecution evidence further statement of the applicant-accused under Section 313 was recorded by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments as per Section 314 of the Cr.P.C. The applicant had filed written arguments vide Exh. 100 on 29.4.2000 and thereafter the matter was posted on 25.5.2000. 2.8It has been stated that on 25.5.2000 the learned Magistrate suo motu passed an order to examine the