The accused had been deprived of their statutory right to get the sample tested from the Central Drugs Laboratory, and that this deprived them of a fair trial.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed by the State of Haryana directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal dated 2.3.1993. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra dated 30.4.1990. By the impugned order, the respondents were discharged.

2. On 13.4.1983, the Drug Inspector took sample of medicine Gentamicin eye drops from the premises of Haryana Medical Stores, Dhand, on 19.4.1983 one part of the sample was sent to Government Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. Government Analyst in the reports dated 7.10.1983 declared that the sample did not contain Gentamicin base against the located quantity of 0.6 M.G. as indicated on the table of the sample. A copy of the report was sent to Haryana Medical Store, Dhand. It was directed to disclose the name and particulars of the persons from whom the said drug has been purchased.

3. On 8.11.1983 partner of Haryana Medical Store, Dhand informed the Drug Analyst through a letter that the medicine had been purchased from Kurukshetra Medicines Traders, Karnal. The said firm namely Kurukshetra Medicines Traders, Karnal was contacted on 18.11.1983. Shri Bharat Bhusan Sharma, proprietor of the concern disclosed that the medicine in question was purchased from Shree Laxmi Pharmaceuticals, Jaipur (respondent No. 6). On 11th April, 1984 a copy of the report of Government Analyst and the 3rd sealed portion of the sample was supplied to respondent No. 6. It was alleged that the said medicine i.e. Gentamicin eye drops had been manufactured by respondent No. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are the partners of respondent No. 6. On 17.4.1984 the accused- respondents challenged the test report of the Government Analyst and alleged that the sample was as per the quality and standard mentioned.

4. Once the complaint had been filed, on 21.12.1988 the respondents moved an application under section 25(4) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter described as the Act). It prayed for fresh analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the sample and report dated 31.3.1989 dated 31.3.1989. The sample could not be tested because the shelf life had expired way back in April, 1984.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment held that respondents had been deprived of their statutory rights under the Act because the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life. The charge against the respondents became groundless. Accordingly the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition and passed the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana urged that as per the report of the Government Analyst the sample was found to be sub standard and, therefore, there was no ground to discharge the respondents. In his opinion the order of the Additional Sessions Judge has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

7. Section 25 of the Act provides the answer to the question counsel for the petitioner. The relevant provisions are being reproduced below for the sake of convenience :-

"25. Report of Government Analysts :-

(1) The government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug (or cosmetic) has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (4) of section 23 shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form.

(2) The inspector on receipt there of shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken (and another copy to the person, if any whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 18-A and shall retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.

(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall b