T. A. KRISHNASWAMY versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 10-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
-• 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
H 
T. A. KRISHNASWAMY 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
December 10, 1965 
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Indian Drugs Act, 1940, s. 25 (3 )-Analyst's report-Not in prescrib-
ed form-if admissible . 
The appellant was convicted under s. !S(a)(ii) ands. 27 of the' Drugs 
Act for having manufactured and exhibited for sale a drug which did 
not contain the ingredients in the proportion mentioned in the label pasted 
on the container of the drug. 
The prosecution produced in evidence. a 
certificate given by the Government Analyst. 
In appeal ro this Court, 
the appellant contended that in the absence of the protocols, the report 
was not in the prescribed form and hence was not admissible in evidence. 
HEU) : 
Rule 46 and Form 13 contemplate analysis and test as two 
different things for otherwise both words would not have been mentioned, 
nor the word "or" been put between them. 
It is true that the rule and 
form require the protocols of a test should be stated but they do not 
require any protocols to be stated in the report of an analysis. In the 
present case the report only gave the result of the analysis; it did not 
give the result of any test; nor did it say that any test bad been carried 
out. 
Indeed, no dispute existed as to the components constituting the 
drug, the only dispute being as to the quantities in which they were 
so contained. That being so, the report was in the prescribed form "'1d 
was fully admissible in evidence. [33 0-E] 
It was irrelevant to consider whether the Analyst should also have 
carried out a test. Even if he should have and dicl not, that would not 
prevent the report of the result of the analysis from being admitted in 
evidence. [33 E-F] 
Raj Ki£han v. Stale of U.P .. A.I.R. 1960 All 460, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 40 
of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 24, 1963, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 22 of 1961. 
R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant. 
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A.. V. Rangam, for the respon-
dent. 
• 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sarkar, J. 
The appellant was convicted by a learned 
magistrate under s. 18(a)(ii) read withs. 27 of the Drugs Act, 
1940 for having manufactured for sale and also exhibited for sale 
a drug known as OKSAL which did not contain the ingredients 
in the proportion mentioned in the label pasted on the container of 
St;PREME COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966J 3 S.C.R. 
the drug. The magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 125 
and in default of payment of the fine, to rigorous imprisonment 
for one month. On appeal by the appellant to the Sessions Judge, 
that conviction was set aside and !he appellant was acquitted. 
On appeal by the State to the High Court of Madras, the judgment 
of the learned Sessions Judge was set aside and the conviction and 
sentence passed by the learned magistrate were restored. Hence 
the present appeal by special leave. 
The prosecution produced in evidence of the charge that the 
drug was misbranded within !he meaning of s. 18(a)(ii). that 
is, its label bore a statement which was false as being at variance 
wi1h the components of the drug, a certificate to that effect given 
by the Government Analyst. The label stated that the drug con-
tained Benzoic acid, Salicylic acid, Zinc Oxide and Boric acid in 
the proportions specified. The report of the Analyst showed that 
the drug did not contain these substances in the proportion indi-
cated but were deficient as follows : Benzoic Acid by 15.5 per 
cent, Salicylic acid by 25 per cent, Zinc Oxide by 25 per cent 
and Boric acid by 46.3 per cent. 
The only question is whether this report was admissible in 
evidence to prove that the contends of the drug were so at variance 
with the statement on the label and therefore the drug had been 
misbranded. Sul:>-scction (3) of s. 25 of the Act states that the 
report of the public Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated 
therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the accused 
person adduced evidence to the contrary in the manner laid down 
in it. The appellant produced no such evidence. The report has 
however to be in the form prescribed before it can be admissible 
in evidence. 
The contention of the appellant is that the report 
was not in such form and hence was not admissible in evidence. 
This contention was accepted by the Sessions Judge but rejected 
by the oth

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.