Preface:

The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for 'Grant of Special Leave' to prefer an Criminal Appeal in Sr.No.40728 of 2016 before this Court as against the Judgment of Acquittal passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem in C.C.No.347 of 2006 dated 29.02.2016.

2. The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.347 of 2006, on 29.02.2016, at paragraph 13, had, among other things, observed the following:-

“... In the present case, the accused in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 25, informed the complainant within 28 days from the date of receipt of the report his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the said report of the Government Analyst. However, because of the failure on the part of the complainant to take prompt appropriate steps in this regard, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable statutory right which has affected the prosecution adversely.

In the instant case, the Drug Inspector, inspite of the receipt of the intimation from the complainant company on 13.12.2004, did not do anything at all and allowed it to lapse which ultimately resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioners for getting the part of the sample of the drug re-analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta which, in fact, has further resulted in depriving the petitioners from exercising their valuable statutory right which, goes to the root of the matter and adversely affects the prosecution. It is no doubt true that the report of the Government Analyst continues to be the evidence in a case of the facts contained therein. However, the right of the accused to get the sample analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta is a valuable right since the certificate of Central Drugs Laboratory supersedes the report of the Government Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents.”

and consequently held that because of the expiry of the life period of the product or because of the failure of the Complainant to take measures to send the sample for retesting well within time, the valuable right of the Accused (Respondents) to prove his innocence was lost and ultimately, dismissed the Complaint as not maintainable and dismissed the same, thereby acquitting the Respondents/Accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

Petitioner's Submissions:

3. The Learned Government (Crl. Side) for the Petitioner/Appellant/State contends that the Respondents/Accused, in their letter dated 08.10.2004 submitted to the Director of Drugs Control, had stated that they would make arrangement as per Law to send their portion of the sample for analysis to Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta.

4. It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant that the trial Court should have appreciated the fact that the Respondents (Accused) had not at all denied the receipt of the Show Cause Memo dated 24.09.2004 and further they had not replied to P.W.1 vide letter dated 13.12.2004 for the Show Cause Memo and the reminder dated 07.12.2004 sent by P.W.1.

5. Proceeding further, the Learned Government (Crl. Side) for the Petitioner/Appellant projects an argument that the trial Court should have taken into account an important fact that the Respondents/Accused had adduced the Test Report of the Government Analyst in Form - 13 only under his letter dated 13.12.2004 sent to P.W.1 and the said letter was received by P.W.1 on 24.12.2004. Therefore, it is the stand of the Petitioner/Appellant that the Petitioner/Appellant had failed to controvert the Government Analyst Report within 28 days and controverted the Report of the Government Analyst pertaining to the present case after 90 days of the receipt of the memo issued by P.W.1. As such, a plea is taken by the Petitioner/Appellant that the Respondents/ Accused had lost their rights in this regard.

6. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Petitioner/Appellant emphatically subm