Skip to content


Babu Lal JaIn Vs. State and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 262 of 1975
Judge
Reported in12(1976)DLT144; 1976RLR413
AppellantBabu Lal Jain
RespondentState and anr.
Advocates: D.C. Mathur,; D.R. Sethi and; T.C.P. Lal, Advs
Excerpt:
- - the learned trial magistrate came to the conclusion that, the best way to ascertain the allegations made in this application is to send the sample bottles of the food inspector to the director, central food laboratory, calcutta, and wherefrom we can very well enquire as to what was the weight of the contents of the sample bottles relating to the two samples. ' (2) i am constrained to observe that the learned trial magistrate completely failed to understand about the right of the petitioner to weigh the bottles in question in the presence of the court in defense. he also failed to realise that the director, central food laboratory, calcutta, is expert in chemical analysis and it is not necessary to send the bottles to find out the weight of the articles of food in question......that, 'the best way to ascertain the allegations made in this application is to send the sample bottles of the food inspector to the director, central food laboratory, calcutta, and wherefrom we can very well enquire as to what was the weight of the contents of the sample bottles relating to the two samples.' (2) i am constrained to observe that the learned trial magistrate completely failed to understand about the right of the petitioner to weigh the bottles in question in the presence of the court in defense. he also failed to realise that the director, central food laboratory, calcutta, is expert in chemical analysis and it is not necessary to send the bottles to find out the weight of the articles of food in question. mr. t. c. b. m. lal, learned counsel for the complainant.....
Judgment:

V.D. Misra, J.

(1) The petitioner had made an application for the sample bottles to be weighed in the presence of the court since the petitioner was challenging the quantity of article of food contained in those bottles. It may be noticed that the application was made by the petitioner when he was producing his defense evidence. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that, 'the best way to ascertain the allegations made in this application is to send the sample bottles of the Food Inspector to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, and wherefrom we can very well enquire as to what was the weight of the contents of the sample bottles relating to the two samples.'

(2) I am constrained to observe that the learned trial Magistrate completely failed to understand about the right of the petitioner to weigh the bottles in question in the presence of the court in defense. He also failed to realise that the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, is expert in Chemical analysis and it is not necessary to send the bottles to find out the weight of the articles of food in question. Mr. T. C. B. M. Lal, learned counsel for the complainant Corporation, fairly conceded before me that the petitioner has a right to weigh the bottles in question in the presence of the court in defense.

(3) The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will produce a person with necessary scales in the court and the samples in question would be weighed in the presence of the court, and their weights recorded. The method of ascertaining the weight of the articles of food would be to weigh each bottle without opening the wrappers etc. They will be weighed again after removing the article of food from the bottles. It is made clear that the petitioner does not want any sample bottle sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for analysis. It is further clear that the person weighing these bottles will be examined as a defense witness.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //