1999 (1) TMI 539 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Certificate from the Director of Central Food Laboratory.
2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Certificate from the Director of Central Food Laboratory:
The Supreme Court examined the validity of the Certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory (CFL) in the context of a prosecution under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case arose when a Food Inspector took a sample of compounded Asafoetida from the respondent's shop, which was initially found adulterated by the Public Analyst. However, the Director of CFL later certified that the sample conformed to the prescribed standards. The High Court quashed the prosecution based on this certificate.

The Court emphasized that u/s 13(3) of the Act, the certificate from the Director of CFL supersedes the report of the Public Analyst, rendering the latter void. The Court highlighted that the certificate is final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein, as per the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 13. The Court rejected the argument that the absence of tests for certain elements in the CFL certificate implied non-testing, stating that it only meant those elements were not present in the sample. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the prosecution based on the CFL certificate.

2. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition:
The petition was also challenged on the grounds of a 309-day delay in filing. The petitioner argued for a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing previous judgments. However, the Court maintained that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning the delay. The petitioner attributed the delay to a lack of communication and procedural lapses within the Corporation. The Court found these reasons insufficient and dismissed the application for condonation of delay without issuing notice to the respondent, as allowed u/r 10 of Order XVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

Justice D.P. Wadhwa, in a separate opinion, expressed reservations about the merits of the case being considered after dismissing the petition on the grounds of delay. He questioned the validity of the CFL certificate, noting that it did not test for all prescribed standards, and suggested that such issues should not be decided ex parte. He concluded that the petition should be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay without commenting on the merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition both on the grounds of delay and on merits, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the prosecution based on the CFL certificate. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, however, opined that the petition should be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay without delving into the merits.