Holding

The special leave petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, without deciding the substantive question of whether the Central Food Laboratory’s certificate supersedes the Public Analyst’s report.

Summary

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order that quashed prosecution of Pawan K. Saraf for alleged adulteration of compounded asafoetida under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court had relied on a Public Analyst’s report finding the sample adulterated, while the accused obtained a certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory stating the sample met the prescribed standards; the High Court set aside the prosecution on the ground that the certificate was incomplete. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certificate of the Central Food Laboratory, even if silent on certain components and not in the prescribed form, automatically supersedes the Public Analyst’s report and is conclusive evidence. The Court also considered an application for condonation of a 309‑day delay in filing the petition. By a majority, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay, refusing to entertain the merits and leaving the High Court order undisturbed. A dissenting opinion warned against deciding the substantive issue without hearing the parties.

Issues considered

Whether a certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the Public Analyst even when it omits test results for certain components and is not in the prescribed form.
Whether the special leave petition filed after a delay of 309 days can be condoned under the Supreme Court Rules and the Limitation Act.
Whether the certificate, under Section 13(5) proviso of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, constitutes conclusive evidence under Section 4 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 141
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 4
Limitation Acts. 5
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 13(3), s. 13(5) proviso, s. 14-A, s. 16(1)(a)(i), s. 7
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955s. Rule 4, s. Rule 5
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order XVI Rule 10

Subjects

Food adulterationPrevention of Food Adulteration ActCentral Food Laboratory certificatePublic Analyst reportConclusive evidenceSpecial leave petitionDelay condonationEvidence Act

Judgment

;·

A CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
PAWAN K. SARAF AND ANR.

JANUARY 13, 1999

B [K.T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND
S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 : Section 13(3) and
(5}-Proviso.
c
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955: Rule 4-Fonns 1 and.2
Appendix B-Item A.04:

Food adulteration-Contradictions in reports of Public Analyst and
Central Food Laborat01y--Effect of--Compozmded asafoetida-Adulteration
D of-Report of public analyst stating that sample does not conjorm to
prescribed standards hence adulterated-On the other hand report of Central
Food Laborato1y stating that sample conjom1s to standards-However, report
of Central Food laboratory silent on three components of compounded
asafoetida-Report also not sent in prescribed fonn-Effect of contradictions
E in reports on prosecution of accused.

Per Thomas and Quadii, JJ.

If the ce1tificate issued by the Director of Central Food laboratory did
F not contain anything about three elements it only means that the sample did
not contain even a wee bit of those elements. Once the Certificate of the
Director of Central Food Laborato1y reaches the court the Report of the
Public Analyst stands displaced and what may remain is only a fossil of it.
Legal impact of a ce1tificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is
three-[old, it annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains
G finality regatding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the
case and it becomes iTTefu.table so far as the facts stated therein are concemed.
If a State declares a fact final then no party can give evidence to disprove
it-17iis is imp01t of Section 4 of the Evidence Act.

H Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR (1967) SC 970 =
74
CALCUTIAMUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. PAWANK.SARAF 75

[1967] 2 SCR 116 and Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.,. AIR A
(1981) SC 1387 = [1981] 3 SCC 72, relied on.

PER WADHWA, J. (DISSENTING)
(Without expressing Final opinion on merits)

No opinion need be expressed on the statement of law that "if the B
ce1tificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory did not contain
anything about those three elements it only means that the sample did not
co11tai11 eve11 a wee bit of those elements when analysis was made in the
laboratory". In this case report of Central Food Authority was not only sile11t
i11 respect of three elements but also was 11ot sent in the prescribed f onn---111
such a situation the questio11 Whether It Would supersede the report of public
c
a11alyst should not be decided by this Court ex parte of its own without 11otice
to the parties and without hearing the matter in depth.

Mu11icipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] 2 SCR 116 and
A Chetumal v. State of Madhya Prasad &A11r., [1981] 3 sec 72, distinguished. D

Constitutio11 of India, 1950 : Article 136.

Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XVI-Rule JO.

Special leave petition-Delay-Condo11ation of-Delay of 309 E
day~Sufficiellt cause not shown for delay-Petitio11 dismissed on the ground
of delay-Whe11 petition is dismissed on the ground of delay Court should 11ot
go into merits.

Collector, Land acquisition, Anant11ag a11dAnr. v. Mst. Katiji a11d Ors.,
AIR (1987) SC 1353. F
Ram/al & Ors. v.Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR (1962) SC361 andRam
Lal Kapur & So11s (P) Ltd. v. Ram Nath & Ors., [1963] 2 SCR 242, referred
to.

Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad. 269, cited. G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti-
tion {Crl.) No. 3708 of 1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.97 of the Calcutta High
Court in Cr!. R. No. 1100 of 1996. H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A L.C. Agrawala, (A.C.) (N.P.) for the Petitioners.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

When we dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 5.11.1998 we also
B said that reasons of such dismissal will follow. Accordingly we state our
reasons hereunder : ,.
Special leave petition has been filed by the Calcutta Municipal
Corporation against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court of
Calcutta quashing a prosecution proceeding pending against the respon-
C dent for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The
aforesaid proceedings were initiated in the following background :

On 19.7.1989 a Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta took
D sample of compounded Asafoetida from the shop of the respondent. When
one of the parts of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Calcutta it
was analysed and found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the
standard prescribed for that food article and hence report was forwarded
to the Local Health Authority. A complaint was thereafter filed against the
E respondent before the Magistrate Court concerned for the aforesaid of-
fence. When respondent entered appearance he made an application to
the court for sending one of the remaining parts of the sample to the
Director of Central Food Laboratory and the court despatched it as prayed
for. The Director of Central Food Laboratory sent a Certificate to the
F court specifying the result of the analysis to the effect that the food article
contained in the sample conforms to the standard prescribed for com-
pounded Asafoetida.

Respondent thereupon move the trial court for discharging him from
prosecution, but the learned Magistrate declined to do so on the premise
G that "the certificate of analysis issued by the Director of Central Food
Laboratory was not complete as results of certain tests were not indicated
therein." Respondent then moved the High Court in revision challenging
the aforesaid order of the Magistrate. learned Single Judge of the High
Court upheld the contentions of the respondents and quashed the prosecu-
H tion proceedings.
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PAWAN K SARAF 77

. Report of the Public Analyst contains the following particulars : A
"Test for Starch Positive

Natural colouring Matter Present

Test for Colophony Resin Positive B
" Test for Galbanum Resin Negative

Test for Ammoniaccum Resin Negative

Test for any other foreign Resin Positive
c
Test for coal tar dyes Negative

Total Ash 0.9%

Test for Mineral Pigment Negative
)•
D
Ash Insoluble in di!. HCI 0.06%

Alcoholic Extract (with 90%
of alcohol) is estimated by the
U.S.P. 1936 method 4.4%
E
And am of opinion that the sample of compound Asafoetida does
not conform to the standard in respect of Alcoholic Extract.
Further it contains Colophony resin and Foreign resin. Hence, it
is Adulterated.
> F
Signed this 17th day of August, 1989."

The Certificate of Central Food Laboratory contains the following
facts :

"Certified that the sample........ was in a condition fit for analysis G
,, and has/have been tested analysed and that the result/results of
such tests analysis are stated below :

Total Ash% 0.66

Ash Insoluble in dil. HCI % 0.04 H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A Alcoholic extract ~
(with 90% alcohol) % 5.50

Test for Colophony Negative

Test for colour Coal tar dye absent
B 1
Boric acid test Positive

And I am of the opinion that the sample conforms to the standards
of compounded Asafoetida as per P.FA. Rules, 1955."

C The standard of quality of compounded Asafoetida is specified in
Item No. A.04 of Appendix B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Rules, 1955 which is extracted below :

"It shall not contain --

D (a) Colophony resin,
(b) galbanum resin,
(c) ammoniaccum resin,
(d) any other foreign resin,
(e) coal tar dyes,
(t) mineral pigment,
E
(g) more than 10 per cent total ash content,
(h) more than 1.5 per cent ash insoluble in dilute
hydrocholoric acid,
(i) less than 5 per cent alcoholic extract, (with 90 per cent
of alcohol) as estimated by the U.S.P. 1936 method."
F
Sri Tapas Ray, learned senior counsel for the petitioner- Corpora-
tion, contended before us that as the certificate is silent about galbanum
resin, ammoniaccum resin and mineral pigment it must be presumed that
the Director of Central Food Laboratory has not conducted those tests
G with the sample and hence the certificate cannot be acted on as such.

If the certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory _,
did not contain anything about those three elements it only means that the
sample did not contain even a wee bit of those elements when analysis was
made in the laboratory. The Central Food Laboratory is establishecfrn
H acco~dance with Section 4 of the Act. Rule 4 of the PFA Rules contains
CALCUTIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PAWAN K. SARAF 79
provisions to be followed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory on A
receipt of a part of the sample sent by the court Sub-rule ( 4) prescribes
that "receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis the Director or
an officer authorized by him, shall compare the seals on the container and
the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note
the condition of the seal thereon." Sub-rule 5 says that after the analysis the
B
• certificate thereof shall be supplied forthwith to the sender in Form II .

Section 13 of the Act contains provisions regarding report of Public
Analyst as well as the Certificate of the Director of Central Food
Laboratory. After institution of prosecution against the person from whom
the sample of the article of food was taken (and/or the person whose name
and address were disclosed under Section 14-A), the accused has the right
c
to apply to the court to get one of the remaining parts of the sample of the
food article analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. It is a right con-
ferred on the aforesaid accused in order to defend the prosecution
launched against him or them. For availing themselves of the aforesaid
statutory right all that they have to do is to make application to the court D
" within the prescribed time. Once the application is made it is not the look
out of the accused to get the result of the analysis made by the Central
Food Laboratory.

Sub-section (2-B) of Section 13 requires the court to despatch one
E
of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of Central
Food Laboratory. Once it is despatched it is the duty of the said Director
to send a Certificate to the court "in the prescribed form within one month
from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of
the analysis". Sub- section (3) of Section 13 is important in this context and
is extracted below : F

"The certificate issued by the Director of the Central Food
Laboratory under sub-section (2-B) shall supersede the report
given by the public analyst under sub-section (1)."

When the statute says that certificate shall supersede the report it G
means that the report would stand annulled or obliterated. The word
'l "supersede" in law, means "obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void
or inefficacious or useless, repeal". (vide Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.).
Once the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory reaches
the court the Report of the Public Analyst stands displaced and what may H
_.J
l

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.

A remain is only a fossil of it.

In the above context the proviso to sub-section (5) can also be looked
at which deals with the evidentiary value of such certificate. The material
portion of the proviso is quoted below :

B "Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed ,
by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory........ shall be final
and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein."

If a fact is declared by a statute as final and conclusive, its impact is
crucial because no party can then give evidence for the purpose of disprov-
c ing the fact. This is the import of Section 4 of the Evidence Act which
defines three kinds of presumptions among which the last is "conclusive
proof'. "When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of
another the court shall, on proof of the one fact regard the other as proved
and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it."
D
Thus the legal impact of a Certificate of the Director of Central Food
Laboratory is three-fold. It annuls or replaces the report of the Public
Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food
article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts
stated therein are concerned.
E
If the argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation is upheld
and the Certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory is sidelined
as pleaded by him, the consequence is that there will not be anything
surviving to show the quality or standard of the food articles involved in
F the case. Even that apart, the accused will be deprived of his statutory right
to disprove the Report of the Public Analyst.

The aforesaid position has been delineated by this Court in two
decisions. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR (1967) SC
970 = [1967] 2 SCR 116 the Director of Central Food Laboratory reported
G to the court that the part of the sample sent to him became highly
decomposed and hence no analysis was possible. The accused was there- ~
upon acquitted and the acquittal was challenged on the contention that in
the absence of a Certificate of the Director the Central Food Laboratory,
for any reason whatsoever, the Report of the Public Analyst will stand and
H the court can act on it. This Court has observed that the right of the
CALCUTfAMUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. PAWANK.SARAF 81

accused to have the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food A
Laboratory is a valuable one and such right has been given "in order that,
for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the
sample.... analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted
by court as "conclusive evidence".

In Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR (1981) SC 1387 B
' = [1981] 3 SCC 72 a certificate was called for from the Director of Central
Food Laboratory but the Director had reported that the specimen impres-
sion of the seal sent to him did not tally with the seal on the container in
which sample was sent to him. In the Certificate the Director mentioned
that the article of food was adulterated as some of the elements were not
in conformity with the standard prescribed. The trial court thereupon
c
convicted the accused relying on the Report of the Public Analyst which
was confirmed in appeal and High Court in revision did not interfere. But
this Court set aside the conviction and sentence with the following obser-
vations :
D
)r
"It is clear that the conviction cannot stand. Under Section 13(3)
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the report of the
Public Analyst stood superseded ·by the certificate issued by the
Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Having been so super-
seded, the report of the Public Analyst could not, therefore, be
E
relied upon to base a conviction. The certificate· of the Director of
the Central Food Laboratory having been excluded from con-
sideration because of the tampering of the seals, there was really
no evidence before the Court on the basis of which the appellant
could be convicted. The court could not fall back on the report of
the Public Analyst as it had been superseded. The only method of F
challenging the report of the Public Analyst was by having the
sample tested by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory."

For the aforesaid reasons the High Court has rightly quashed the
prosecution proceedings on the strength of the Certificate of the Director
of Central Food Laboratory which has come on record in the case.
G
)
D.P. WADHWA, J. This special Leave Petition is barred by 309 days.
It is against an order made in revision by the Calcutta High Court uphold-
ing the order of the trial court acquitting the respondent of an offence
under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act, H
I
f
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
L
A for short). There is an application by the petitioner seeking condonation
of delay in filing this petition. Reliance has been placed on a decision of
this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji
and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 1353. It was submitted that the Court should be
liberal in condoning the delay. Liberal all right, but delay is inexcusable
unless sufficient cause is shown. It is not the law that when an application
B seeking condonation of delay is filed by the State or any authority, this
Court must invariably condone the delay irrespective whether sufficient
cause is shown or not. In Ramlal & Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 361, this Court said :

c "In construing s.5 of the Limitation Act it is relevant to bear in
mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that
the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an
appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat
the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when
the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder
D has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the
·~
decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued
to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly
disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that
if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given
E to the O:mrt to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discre-
'
tion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that
judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to
advance substantial justice. As has been observed by the Madras
High Court in Krishna v. Chathappan, ILR 13 Mad. 269.

F
"Section 5 gives the Court a discretion which in respect of ...
jurisdiction is to be exercised in the way in which judicial
power and discretion ought to be exercised upon principles
which are well understood; the words sufficient cause' receiv-
ing a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice
G when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fide is
imputable to the appellant".
~
In para 4 of the application, petitioner has described the following
circumstances which according to it would amount to sufficient cause for
H the 'court to condone the delay :
CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONv. PAWANK. SARAF 83

'f "The impugned order was passed on 13.08.1997, however, as the A
Ld. Advocate for the petitioner Corporation in the High Court did
not communicate the result of the case to the Corporation, the
Certified Copy of the same could be applied only upon knowing
the result on 12.02.1998. Accordingly, the Certified Copy of the
Order was ready for delivery on 20.04.1998. The same was col-
B
lected by the officers of the Law Department of the Petitioner
" Corporation during May, 1998, and a decision to file the SLP was
taken during June, 1998. The Advocate-on-record for the
Petitioner was instructed to file the S.L.P. upon re-opening of this
Hon'ble Court after summer vacations. Upon examination of the
papers sent for filing S.L.P. it was found that the same were c
insufficient to draft the S.L.P. Accordingly, vide letter dated
14.07.1998, a requisition was sent for forwarding the required
documents, this requisition was followed by a reminder dated
27.07.1998. The Officer of the Corporation visited Delhi in con-
nection with this case and other matters on 02.09.1998, but again
D
without Annexure P-2 to the S.L.P., though the S.L.P. was finalised
and the Affidavit was sworn by the Officer of the Corporation but
for want of Annexure P-2 to the S.L.P. the same could not be filed.
The Annexure P-2 to the S.L.P. was received on 15.09.98, and
thereafter this S.L.P. was filed without any delay."
E
Annexure P-2 is a report of the Central Food Laboratory dattd November
2, 1989. It is not that this report was not with the petitioner. On the face
of it, there appears to be no sufficient cause to condone the delay. We did
not think it even necessary to issue notice on this application and dismissed
the application. It is only when circumstances mentioned in the application F
"' before this Court would show sufficient cause to condone the delay that
notice is required to be issued. Rule 10 of Order XVI of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 provides that where a petition for special leave has been
filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor and is accom-
panied by an application for condonation of delay, the Court shall not
condone the delay without notice to the respondent. In Ram Lal Kapur & G
Sons (P) Ltd. v. Ram Nath and Ors, [1963) 2 SCR 242, a preliminary
~
objection wo.s raised to the hearing of the appeal by the respondent that
this Court granted special leave ex parte and it should be revoked as
having been improperly obtained. Application (petition) seeking leave
was filed after a great deal of delay, i.e., after lapse of 4 years. The H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
.,,
A Court observed :
.
"It is obvious that it was an application which had been filed far
beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the rules of this
Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent urged th~~ there were
no sufficient grounds for condoning that long delay and that we
B should therefore revoke the leave." ~

The Court, however, did not accede to the request of the respondent
for revoking the leave in the peculiar circumstances of the case before it
and went on to observe as under : ~

\.-
c "Nevertheless, we consider that we should add that, except in very
rare cases, if not invariably, it should be proper that this Court
should adopt as a settled rule that the delay in making an applica-
tion for special leave should not be condoned ex- parte but that
before granting leave in such cases notice should be served on the
D respondent and the latter afforded an opportunity to resist the
grant of the leave. Such a course besides being just, would be
preferable to having to decide applications for revoking leave on
the ground that the delay in making the same was improperly
condoned years after the grant of the leave when the Court
naturally feels embarrassed by the injustice which would be caused
E
to the appellant if leave were then revoked when he would be
deprived of the opportunity of pursuing other remedies if leave
had been refused earlier. We would suggest that the rules of the
Court should be amended suitably to achieve this purpose."

F It is, therefore, only when this Court from the facts stated in the •
application seeking condonation of µeiay is prim a f acie of the view that
there could be sufficient cause that notice is required to be issued. If the
application does not make out any such cause there is no bar dismissing
the application without notice to the other party. Since no sufficient cause
was shown by the petitioner as noted above, we dismissed the petition on
G the ground of delay.
-. r
'
Though we dismissed the special leave petition on the ground of
delay as well as on merits, on reconsideration I feel it is contradiction in
terms. If we .dismiss the petition on the ground of delay we cannot go into
H the merits though at best it could be said that it is not a fit case for this
CALCUTIAMUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. PAWANK.SARAF 85
_. Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 138 of the Constitution. A
Be that as it may. With due respect to my learned brethren I think I
should not express any opinion on the statement of law that if the certificate
· issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory did not contain anything
about those three elements it only means that the sample did not contain
~ even a wee bit of those elements when analysis was made in the laboratory". B
This is how I look at the things.

Under the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, standard of quality of compounded asafoetida which was alleged to
be adulterated has been prescribed. Compounded asafoetida shall not
contain:
c
(a) Colophony resin,
(b) Galbanum resin,
(c) ammoniaccum resin,
... (d) any other foreign resin, D
(e) coal tar dyes,
· (t) mineral pigment,
(g) more than 10 per cent total ash content,
(h) more than 1.5 per cent ash insoluble in dilute
hydrocholoric acid,
(i) less than 5 per cent alocoholic extract, (with
E
90 per cent of alcohol) as estimated by the
U.S.P. 1936 method.

In the present case, while the Public Analyst analysed the article with
reference to all the items aforesaid, the certificate issued by the Director F
of CFL did not show any testing for galbanum resin, ammoniaccum resin
and mineral pigment. Under S~tion 13 of the Act, Public Analyst is to
submit his report in form as may be prescribed. Similarly, the Director,·
CFL is also to send the certificate of the analysis of the sample in the form
prescribed. Forms are prescribed under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under
the Act. While Public Analyst is to send his report in form 1 as prescribed G
-- r under Rule 4( 1) of the Rules, certificate of test .or analysis by the CFL is
' to be sent in form 2 as prescribed under Rule 4(5) of the Rules. In the
present case, it would be seen that whjle the Public Analyst has sent his
report of analysis in the form prescribed, it was not so done by the Director
of CFL. Should not analysis by each of these two authorities show that the H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A sample was tested with reference to the standard prescribed? The question
that may arise for consideration is if in such a case, it could be said that "
the report of the Director of CFL would supersede that of the Public
Analyst when the report of the Director, CFL is not in the form prescribed.
Prime f acie it may be so but it certainly requires considerati<;,1. This Court
should not reach its decision ex-parte of its own without notice to the :
B parties and without hearing the matter in depth.

Argument of Mr. Tapas Ray, learned counsel for the Calcutta
Municipal Corporation, that since the report of the Director of CFL was
silent about galbanum resin, ammoniaccum resin and mineral pigment it
c must be presumed that he had not conducted those tests with the sample
and such certificate issued by him is not valid cannot be brushed aside
without hearing full arguments. It is on this ground that I have expressed
-
my inability to concur with the view that if the certificate issued by the
Director, CFL did not contain anything about those three elements it only
means that the sample did not contain even a wee bit of those elements
D when analysis was made in the laboratory. As a matter of fact I think that ...,:
this Court should not lay down a law on an cr parte hearing. It is not
material even if the dismissal of the petition does not prejudice the other
party. Any law declared by this Court applies all over. It is binding on all
the courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.
E
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, [1967] 2 SCR 116
the plea which found acceptance by this Court was that the respondent
having been denied his right of obtaining the report of Director, CFL
because of the delay by the appellant in launching the prosecution, the
respondent could not be validly convicted. It was case where sample of
F curd was lifted from t~e shop of the respondent. This court held :

"It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by Section
.. 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him
analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to
G be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner
that that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable
one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report 1' ----
-,
of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its
contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order
H that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to
r

CALCUTIAMUNICIPALCORPORATIONv. PAWANK. SARAF 87

'I have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert A
whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as conclusive evidence.
In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the
deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor,
in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper
to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public B
'
~ Analyst, event though that report continues to be evidence in t~e
case of the facts contained therein."

The Court also observed :

"We are not to be understood as laying down that, in every case c
where the right of the vendor to have his sample tested by the
Director of the Central Food Laboratory is frustrated, the vendor
cannot be convicted on the basis of the report of the Public
Analyst, we consider that the principle must, however, be applied
to cases where the conduct of the prosecution has resulted in the D.
·"' denial to the vendor of any opportunity to exercise this right.
Different considerations may arise if the right gets frustrated for
reasons for which the prosecution is not responsible."

In Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., [1981] 3 SCC 72, an E
objection was taken that the certificate issued by the Director, CFL could
not be taken into consideration as he had reported that the specimen
impression seal sent to him did not tally with the seal of the container in
which the sample of oil was sent to him. This Court held :

> "The certificate of the. Director of the Central Food Laboratory F
having been excluded from consideration because of the tampering
of the seals, there was really no evidence before the court on the
basis of which the appellant could be convicted. The court could
not fall· back on the report of Public Analyst as it had been
superseded. The only method of challenging the report of the G
Public Analyst was by having the sample tested by the Director of
.,.
.
the Centra!Food laboratory. In the present case the appellant was
deprived of the opportunity to .which he was entitled for no fault
of his. It was not, therefore, open to the court to fall back upon
the report of the Public Analyst to convict the appellant." H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A These two judgments, in my view, do not deal with the issue raised
in the present case. As seen above the report of the Director, CFL is not
in the form prescribed inasmuch as it did not show if the Director con-
ducted test respecting all the standards laid down the rule.

i would, therefore, rather dismiss the Special Leave Petition on the
B ground of delay without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.