Lapse dixit
Though the certificate of a person who is declared to be a public analyst can alone be held admissible, three is nothing in the Act to prevent a qualified person from examining the sample and being actually examined in the case and speak to the contents of a certificate issued by him and which can be treated as a contemporaneous document for the purpose of refreshing memory, etc. [State v. Karson Zaveri, 1960 CrLJ 1582). That the weight as a piece of evidence to be attached to the written report of a public analyst will depend upon the date of the quantitative analysis furnished by the public analyst in his report, and that the mere lapse dixit of the public analyst which cannot be adequately tested must be rejected has been laid down in Dindayal v. The State, [1956 CrLJ 1031). This was followed in State v. Shantiram, [1958 CrLJ 8], wherein it was held that the certificate of the public analyst should contain the factual data which the analysis should reveal, and not merely the opinion of the public analyst as to what the date indicates about the nature of the article of food. Otherwise, if the certificate merely gives the final opinion of the public analyst and if such an opinion is held to be conclusive evidence about the nature of the article of food, the merit of the case against the accused will be really decided by the public analyst and not by the Court. [Municipal Council. Kanpur v. Badloo, 1960 CrLJ 1056). The Punjab High Court has condemned the practice of the analyst, in cases where food is analyzed, of merely stating that it is highly adulterated with extraneous vegetable matter. On the other hand, the analyst should indicate what is the extent of the impurity and what the impurity is. [State v. Shanti Prakash, 1957 CrLJ 390). The procedure prescribed by the relevant Acts should be strictly adhered to. [P’P. v. Kuppam, 1960 CrLJ 46). [Section 45, Evidence Act, 1872].
