Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rule 46 of the rules made under the Act provides that the Government Analyst shall "after the test or analysis has been completed forth with supply to the Inspector a report in triplicate in Form 13 of the result of the test or analysis together with full protocols of the tests applied". This is the prescribed form of the report. Head 7 of Form 13 is in these words : "Results of test or analysis with protocols of tests applied". It appears that the Drugs Inspector who obtained the samples from the appellant's shop duly forwarded a part of these to the Government Analyst with a letter stating that they were sent for "test or analysis".

3 3 Now, the report of the Analyst did not state the protocols of any test. It is said that r. 46 and Form 13 indicated that the protocols of the tests applied had to be stated in the report. The contention is that in the absence of the protocols the report was not in the prescribed form and was hence not admissible in evidence. It appears that protocols of test means the details of the process of test. The question then is, do r. 46 and Form 13 require that in the present case the protocols of tests had to be stated ? We do not think they do. Obviously, the rule and the form contemplate analysis and test as two different things, for otherwise both words would not have been mentioned, nor the word 'or' been put between them. It is true that the rule and the form require that the protocols of a test should be stated. They do not require any protocols to be stated in the report of an analysis. Now in the present case what the, report did was only to give the result of the analysis. It did not give the result of any test. Nor does it say that any test had been carried out. Indeed no dispute exists as to the components constituting the drug, the only dispute being as to the quantities in which they were so contained. The report only stated the quantities of them found on analysis. That being so, in our view, the report is in the prescribed form and is fully admissible in evidence.

The Inspector in his letter to the Analyst no doubt stated that the sample was sent to him for "test or analysis". But what the Analyst did was only to make an analysis. It is irrelevant to consider whether he should also have carried out a test. Even if he should have and did not, that would not prevent the report of the result of the analysis from being admitted in evidence. That report would nonetheless be conclusive evidence under s. 25 (3) of the Act. Our attention was drawn to the case of Rai Kishan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh. (1) There it was observed that when a report did not state the protocols of the test applied, it could not be said to be a report in the prescribed form. It is not clear from the judgment whether the report in that case purported to be the report of a test or of an analysis. If that case intended to hold that no report of an analysis is in the prescribed form where the protocols are not stated, we are unable to agree with it.