Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. Condition of seals on the package intact and identical with the specimen seal impression sent by D.I. Separately.
7. Result of test or analysis with protocols of test or analysis applied IP Description: A colourless solution in colourless glass transfusion bottle. The sample contains white fibrous mass comprising of fungus.

                                                             Claim

              Ext. volume/bottle         100 ml              100 ml
              PH identification          complies
              Mannitol % w/v             positive            20.0
                                         19.58

              Sterility bacteria         does not comply
              Fungus                     does not comply

Mr. Shekhawat pointed to the fact that PW-1 N.K. Ahooja had 32 of 54 Crl. Revision No.4436 of 2017 and other connected petitions 33 admitted that he was not aware that M/s Ess Jee Pharmaceuticals, Samalkha, had closed in 2002; with him also admitting that the notice dated 05.05.2004 had not been served at the address at Samalkha.

54. Mr. Shekhawats' next argument was that there was violation of Rules 46 and 57 of the Rules of 1945, inasmuch as the protocols applied, of the test for analysis, are required to be given in Form 13 (test report). However, the reports (Ex.PW2/4 in Criminal Complaint no.1419 of 2005 and Ex.PW1/7 in Criminal Complaint no.1418 of 2005) are silent on the protocol applied to determine that fungus or bacteria was actually present in the injections.

72. Coming next to the argument of Mr. Shekhawat that protocols applied by the Government Analyst have not been shown in the reports submitted by him, in terms of Rule 46 of the Rules. In this context, the judgment of the Supreme Court in T. A. Krishnaswamy v. State of Madras (1966) 3 SCR 31, needs to be referred to, wherein it was held by a three Judge Bench as follows:-

"5. Now, the report of the Analyst did not state the protocols of any test. It is said that Rule 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.
8. Our attention was drawn to the case of Raj Kishan v. The State, AIR 1960 Allahabad 460. 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."