Judgment

KAILASAM, J.:- This appeal is by certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against its judgment in Criminal Misc. Application No. 257 of 1971 in Revision No. 1833 of 1969.*

* Reported in 1972 All Cri R 285

2. The facts of the case briefly are that P.W. 1 the inspector of Drugs, Kanpur on 22nd february, 1966 went to the shop of M/s. Misra Brothers in which the appellant was a partner, and purchased four packets of Prednisolone tablets which were stocked there and sent the same to Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. The report of the Director indicated that the tablets were of sub-standard quality as defined in Drugs Act, 1940. A complaint was lodged by the Drugs Inspector and the appelant was tried for the offence punishable under S. 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I.for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. An appeal to Court of Session was rejected and the revision petition to the High Court also met the same fate. Against the order in revision passed by the single Judge of the High Court, the appellant took the matter up to a Bench of the High Court for review of the judgement. The Bench dismissed the Revision Petition but in doing so, granted a certificate on the ground that it raised substantial questions of law.

3. All the courts below have found that the appellant had sold the sample which on examination by the Central Laboratory was found to be of substandard. The findings of fact was confirmed by the High Court and there are no grounds for us to interfere with the findings. The question which was raised before the High Court was that the sample taken by the Inspector was not sent to the Director through the Court and, therefore, his report is inadmissible in evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the sample ought to have been given to the Analyst at Lucknow under S. 25 (1) of the Act and should not have been sent direct to the Director of Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The submission is that by sending the sample straight to the Director, Central. Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, the appellant was deprived of his right under S. 25 (4) of requesting the Court to send the sample for analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory. We do not see any substance in this contention. S. 25 (1) deals with the reports of Government Analyst. S. 25 (1) provides that the Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form. The sub-section contemplates two modes of sending samples one by sending the drug for test or under-sub-sec. (4)of S. 23. There is no restriction as to how a sample of the drug or cosmetic has to be submitted by the Drugs Inspector. S. 25 (4) contemplates sending of the sample through the Court. It provides that unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of Government Analysts report at the request either of the complainant or the accused cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of S. 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the laboratory.

4. The mode prescribed under S. 25 (4) is one method of sending it to the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory. The other method is by the Drugs Inspector sending it direct as contemplated under the first part of S. 25 (1). It is significant that sub-sec. (4) of Section 25 starts with the words "unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory." These words clearly indicate that apart from the mode prescribed in S. 25 (4),the sample can be sent for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory.

5. The word Government Analyst is defined under S. 3 (c).S.3 (c) (2) is defined as meaning analyst of