Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In addition to these common grounds, Sri Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners also raised the following additional grounds.--

(1) Whether the certificate of test issued by the Government Analysts and the Director of Central Drug Laboratory is legal and valid one?

(2) By referring to Section 20 of the Act, it is contended that under Section 20, it is required from the State Government to appoint such persons as Government Analysts by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. It is contended that in spite of his thorough research in this regard there is no such notification issued by the State Government appointing the Government Analysts and the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of testing these drugs are spurious or sub-standard nature. He has brought to the notice of the Court various later notifications issued by the State Government appointing the Government Analysts at State Laboratory for the purpose of Section 20. Hence, it is contended that unless and until such notification is shown to be in existence the report of the Government Analysts and the Directors, Central Drugs Laboratory cannot be accepted as gospel truth to show that the drug manufactured by the petitioners company is either spurious or sub-standard one. Nextly, he contended that for the purpose of finding out whether prima setting is used in the product in dispute British Pharmacopoeia prescribes a particular test called 'Chromatography method' and according to the learned Counsel this is the only standard test to find out as to the correctness of the prima setting or whether the drug containing Neomycin or Framycetin is either correct one or spurious one. He contended that as per the report of the Laboratory, the test conducted by the Analysts is 'Neomycin' without determination test and hence as the test conducted by the Government Analysts even if it is accepted for the time being as authorised one, it is wrong or erroneous test conducted. It is submitted that on the basis of such erroneous test or method, which cannot be held that, the petitioners have violated the provisions of the Act or that the product manufactured by them is sub-standard or spurious one. It is also contended that by looking into Rule 3 of the Rules and Sections 24 and 25 of the Act as well as the powers of the Inspectors and the Government Analysts whether it was open for the Drug Inspector directly to send the product for testing to the Central Drugs Laboratory instead of being tested at the State Laboratory itself. The answer to this queries and contentions raised by the learned State Public Prosecutor is very simple. He contended that particular test should be conducted or not or as to what is the best test to be conducted is subject-matter of evidence of the experts and this Court while exercising the inherent jurisdiction cannot hold the evidence for the purpose of finding how the matters which are to be established by the experts' evidence. Insofar as the notifications under Section 20 is concerned he contended that as the petitioners had not raised this contention in the petition and is being argued for the first time is taken unaware of the fact and even otherwise the same could be established during the trial. In this regard, it is further contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor that there is no restricted place under the Act as to which laboratory the drug to be sent and which is admittedly a discretionary power of the Inspector to send it.