Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15.The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Petitioner/Appellant/State submits that P.W.1 had strictly followed the mandatory provisions of the sampling procedure under Section 23 r/w Rule 57(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 while drawing sample. Added further, it is the categorical stand of the Petitioner/Appellant that the Respondents/Accused had not at all denied the receipt of Show Cause Memo dated 24.09.2004 of the then Drugs Inspector, Salem and that they had not replied to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and therefore, reminder for the said Show Cause Notice was issued on 07.12.2004 and that the Respondents/Accused had replied on 13.12.2004 and in that Reply, they had not denied the substandard drugs [vide Test Report No.03993-D/2003-04, dated 08.07.2004 of the Government Analyst], but they denied the spurious drugs as per Ref. No. Test Report No.00798-D/2004-2005, dated 08.09.2004 of the Government Analyst, Chennai.

34.Indeed, Rule 44 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 speaks of 'Qualifications of Government Analyst'. Rule 45 deals with 'Duties of Government Analysts'. Rule 46 pertains to 'Procedure on receipt of sample'. Rule 47 relates to 'Report of result of test or analysis'. Rule 56 refers to 'Form of intimation of purpose of taking samples'. Rule 57 deals with 'Procedure for despatch of sample to Government Analyst'.

35.As a matter of fact, the conclusiveness mentioned in Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is to be read in juxtaposition with the individuals referred to in the sub-section. To put it differently, if any of the individuals who receives a copy of the Report of the Government Analyst fails to notify his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the facts mentioned in the report within a period of 28 days of the receipt of the notice, then, such report of the Government Analyst could be become conclusive evidence regarding the facts stated therein as against such individuals. However, in respect of an Accused like the Manufacturer, who is not entitled to be supplied with a copy of the Report of the Government Analyst, he should have the liberty to challenge the correctness of the facts stated in the report by resorting to any other modes by which such facts can be disproved. He is also entitled to avail the remedy mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act by making a request before the Court to send the other portion of the sample remaining in the Court to be tested at the Central Drugs Laboratory.