Anand Swarup v. State

Tripathi, J.:— This revision is directed against an order of a Magistrate First Class, Aligarh, directing sample of certain drugs to be forwarded to the Central Drugs Laboratory for complete tests in accordance with sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 25 of the Drugs Act.

2. The facts which are relevant to the question in controversy may be stated as follows:—

3. Sri G.R Jain, the then Inspector of Drugs, Aligarh, inspected the premises of Viiay Anand and Company which deal in medicines and drugs on 26-1-1961 at about 8 P.M and found the applicants exhibiting for sale and selling injections Irgapyrine, apparently manufactured by Suhrid Geigy (Private) Limited, Baroda. The Inspector purchased eight boxes of the drugs containing five ampules each as sample and divided and sealed them in accordance with the rules. A specimen portion of the sample was given to the applicants, and the other was sent to the Director, Central Drugs Research Institute, Lucknow, for analysis. The Government Analyst declared the drug to be of standard quality by his report dated May 1, 1961. It appears that some of those ampules recovered from the shop were also sent to their alleged manufactures Suhrid Geigy (Private) Limited, Baroda, for their comments. The manufactures replied that the drug had not been manufactured by them and appeared to be spurious. Thereafter the Government Analyst was asked to analyse the sample chemically for its active ingredients. On such examination he reported on February 5, 1962, that they were not of standard quality. Copies of both the reports were handed over to the applicants and thereafter on 12-2-1963, a complaint was filed against them for having contravened the provisions of Sec. 18(a) of the Act and for having made themselves punishable under Sec. 27 of the Drugs Act. On the basis of this complaint a case was registered against the applicants.

4. Before the court of the Magistrate, therefore there were in a way two reports from the Public Analysts giving contrary opinion about the nature of the sample presumably on the basis of different methods of examination followed by them Obviously, the applicants were not prepared to accept the second report of the Analyst which had indicated that the sample obtained from their shop was of misbranded drugs. From a letter dated 16-2-1962 sent on behalf of the applicants to the Inspector of Drugs, Aligarh, which is on the record it is obvious that the case of the applicants was that they “do not admit the second report and moreover the report is not legal so far as this sample is concerned” and that they were not guilty of any contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the applicants were not prepared to accept the correctness of the facts stated in the subsequent report of the Public Analyst. I think that in these circumstances the only course open to the learned Magistrate was, in the interest of justice, to send the sample of the drug produced before him for test or analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory so that it could be found out as to whether the drug was genuine and conformed to the requisite standard fixed under the Drugs Act and the Rules as had been reported by the Analyst on May 1, 1961, or that it was a misbranded drug as had been reported again by him on February 5, 1962. Whether the sample to which the Public Analyst's report dated February 5, 1962, related was taken in a proper manner and dispatched to him in accordance with the rules would be a question for decision by the Magistrate trying the case. The fact remains that there were two reports from the Analysts before the Magistrate both of which had been obtained before the institution of the prosecution against the applicants and that the applicants were not prepared and could not in the very circumstances of the case be prepared to accept the facts stated in the subsequent report. Therefore, in my opinion the Magistrate had jurisdiction within the meaning of Sec. 25(4) of the Act to send the sample for test and analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory.

5. In any case the order of the Magistrate being in consonance with justice, I am not prepared to interfere with it at this stage.

6. This revision is, therefore, dismissed. The record of the case will be sent to the lower court as expeditiously as possible.

Revision dismissed.