A.S. Bains, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 29th Feb., 1980, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur was set aside and the case was remanded to the Magistrate for affording an opportunity to the State to formally prove the report of the Public Analyst and to decide the matter afresh.
(2.) The only point urged in this petition by Mr. Kalra, counsel for the petitioner, is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not remand the case for retrial to fill up the lacuna.
(3.) I have perused the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has remanded the case for retrial after giving an opportunity to the prosecution to formally prove the report of the Public Analyst. In this case the original report of the Public Analyst was not produced; only an attested copy of the same was produced. Mr. Kalra has placed reliance on Jai Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana, 1978 CLR (P & H) 241 , wherein it was held that the case cannot be remanded for retrial to fill up the lacuna by the prosecution. He also placed reliance on Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1979 (II) FAC 72 , where it was held as under : "It is well established cannon of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any doubt which may arise in the case is to be conferred upon the accused and it is not the function of the Court to enable the prosecution to fill in the lacuna in its evidence by affording it opportunity to do so, unless of course the Court finds it impossible to pronounce an effective judgment, on account of lack of some vital information. The mere fact that the prosecution had failed to produce all the necessary materials to establish the culpability of the petitioner, does not justify the remand of a case, even though while doing so, the Court may have afforded opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence afresh." Admittedly, in the present case the original report of the Public Analyst is not on the record. No authority taking a contrary view is produced by the counsel for the State inspite of an opportunity given to him and at his request the case was adjourned for a day.;