SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(All) 163

M.C.DESAI
RAJ KISHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.N.SRIVASTAV, P.C.Chaturvedi

M. C. DESAI, J.


( 1 ) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 18 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Drugs Act. A municipal Medical Officer of Health took a sample; of a medicine called Gripex on 10-11-1955 from the shop of the applicant and sent it for analysis. The Government Analyst after analysis gave has report on the prescribed form that it was substandard but did not give the protocols of the test applied by him. The report was received in evidence against the applicant and on its basis he has been convicted. The Government analyst himself was not examined as a witness to prove the tests applied by him.

( 2 ) ON the date on which the Municipal Medical Officer of Health took the sample, the Drugs Act of 1940 stood amended by the Act of 1955. Section 21 of the Act as it stands now empowers a state Government to appoint such persons, as it thinks fit "having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Chapter within such local limits as it may assign to them respectively". Under Section 33 the Central Government has been empowered to make rules prescribing qualifications of Inspectors. In exercise of that power, in June, 1957, the Central Government made







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top