1982 ALL. L. J. 242 ::1982 UP CriLR 177 ::(1982) 1 FAC 187 ::(1982) AllCriC 87 ::(1982) AllCriR 108 ::(1982) EFR 20

Allahabad High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): N. N. Sharma , J

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) , S.13(2)— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.73, S.45— Report of result of analysis @page-ALJ243- Prosecution alleging that required information sent to vendor - Denial by vendor that he signed receipt - Opinion of Court that it was signed by vendor is not sustainable. Where there was total absence of evidence about authenticity of signature on an acknowledgment receipt alleged to be signed by the vendor, finding by the appellate court that the signature was in the handwriting of the vendor is unsustainable and there is non-compliance of madatory provision of S, 13(2). Consequently the conviction under S. 7 read with S. 16 is illegal. AIR 1960 Mys 220; AIR 1969 All 423; 1979 All L J 38; 1945 K B 490; (1941) 1 K B 53 and (1902) 2 K B 363 Foll.(Para 15) Under Evidence Act opinions are relevant under Ss. 45 to 51; S. 73 which occurs under the Chapter "Admissibility" details about the mode of proof and not about relevancy. Cases are to be decided on evidence. Evidence may be oral or documentary. It is true that S. 73 deals with mode of proof of documents. Those modes are well recognised. No doubt the court itself can compare the handwriting in the disputed and undisputed documents and satisfy itselfas to the identity (Sec. 73), but such opinion of the court cannot be a subs....