Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The last contention of Mr. Sood is that the report of the analyst is vague since it does not show the extent of adulteration. It is Rule 46 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which lays down the procedure to be followed by the Government Analyst on receipt of the sample. The relevant part of this rule reads:

On receipt of a package from an Inspector containing a sample for test or analysis, the Government Analyst shall compare the seals on the packet with the specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals on the package. After the test or analysis has been completed, he shall forthwith 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 or analysis applied.
-Explanation, It shall be deemed to be full and sufficient compliance with the requirement of the rule in respect of the supply of "protocols of the test or analysis applied" if (1) for pharmacopoeial drug, where the tests or methods of analysis prescribed in the official pharmacopoeia are followed, references to the specific tests or analysis in the pharmacopoeias are given in the report; xx xx

16. Now the relevant part of the report of the Government Analyst may be noticed. It reads.

In the opinion of the undersigned the sample referred to above is not of ' standard quality as defined in the Drugs Act, 1940, and rules thereunder for reasons given below:

Remarks : The sample does not conform to I. P. in respect to Polymorph-A content.

17. Now it is 1975 supplement to the Pharmacopoeia of India which lays down the standard of quality. It also provides for the test which the drug should comply with. One of the tests is polymorph-A. How the test is to be conducted is described in detail. It is the contention of Mr. Sood that details should have been given by the Government Analyst since it is ultimately provided that the extinction ratio of the sample is greater than the extinction ratio of the standard containing 10 per cent w/w of polymorph-A". I am afraid there is no substance in this contention. As already noticed. Explanation (1) to Rule 46 specifically lays down that "protocols of the tests or analysis applied" well be sufficiently complied with in respect of a pharmacopoeia drugs where the methods prescribed in the official pharmacopoeia are followed and references to the specific tests or analysis in the pharmacopoeias are given in the report. In the instant case the report makes a specific reference to the Indian Pharmacopoeia supplement 1975 as regards the methods. It specifically mentions the test of polymorph-A. Since the sample did not conform to this test, it was declared to be not of standard quality as defined in the Act. It is thus a sufficient compliance and it was not necessary to describe the test in detail or mention in detail the result of the test.

19. Mr. Sood has made a reference to the State of Maharashtra v. Jawaharlal Shamlal Ujawne 1979 Cri LJ 530 (Bom), S. Dutta v. State and Dharam Deo Gupta v. Stale . I have carefully gone through these judgments and I am of the opinion that these cases were decided on their own peculiar facts and have no relevance to the present case. In the first case the court came to the conclusion that it was not known what the protocol of the test applied for was since the report was silent on that point. The second case refers to the Bengal Drugs Rules, 1946. The decision was based on Rule 5 of these rules which I find is not pari materia with the present Rule 46 with which I am concerned. However, the case related to olive oil and the court came to the conclusion that full protocols of the test applied were set out In the third case the court found that no factual data at all had been given in the report.