Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Rule 46 provides, in so far as is material for this judgment, that on receipt of a package from an Inspector containing a sample for test or analysis, the Government Analyst shall forthwith supply to the Inspector a report of the result of the test o-r analysis, together with full protocols of the tests or analysis applied. It was the grievance of Mr. Manohar that the provisions of Rules 57 and 46 have been breached in this case, with the result that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate should be set aside and the respondent should be acquitted.

7. Coming to the requirements of R. 46, on 26th May 1971, the Government Analyst gave his certificate, stating that the sample was not of standard quality as defined in the Act, that the sample was not "Santonine", and that the sample gave I.P. Qualitative tests for the presence of Magnesium and sulphate. The report of the Government Analyst reads as under:

Details of the results of Test or Analysis with Protocols of Tests applied.
                                                 Batch No.  
            Proper Name                 :      Santonine.
            Observation on labelling    : ...  ... ... ... ...
            Outer Label                 :      Santonine India
                                               (Hand written).
            Container label             :      Santonine, India.
            Description                 :      White Crystalline
                                                Powder. 
            Identification              :      The sample does not
                                               comply with I. P.
                                               Identificational tests 
                                               for Santonine.
 

The sample gives qualitative tests for Magnesium and Sulphate.
Now, it is not in dispute that it is not known what the "protocols of tests applied" were. The report is silent on this point, and so is the record. In view of the provisions of Rule 46 which are mandatory, the Government Analyst was bound to furnish to the Inspector the full protocols of the tests applied. Admittedly, this has not been done This lacuna, in our opinion was a fatal hurdle in the path of the prosecution.

8. The Analyst has not given evidence, nor is there anything on record to indicate what test was applied to reveal the alleged presence of Magnesium and Sulphate, If the prosecution had led the evidence of the Analyst, he could have been cross-examined and the prosecution case could have been tested on this point also. This was a lacuna which must militate against the prosecution.