|
25. Reports of Government
Analysts. � (1) The Government Analyst
to whom a sample of any drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f.
27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] has been submitted for test or analysis under
sub-section (4) of section 23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it is
signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form.
(2) The Inspector on receipt
thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample
was taken [(Note: Subs. by Act 13 of 1964, sec.17, for certain words (w.e.f.
15-9-1964)) and another copy to the person, if any, whose name, address and
other particulars have been disclosed under section 18A], 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 be conclusive
unless the person from whom the sample was taken [(Note: Subs. by Act 13 of
1964, sec.17, for "or the said warrantor" (w.e.f. 15-9-1964)) or the person
whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 18A]
has, within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified
in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of
the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of
the report.
(4) Unless the sample has
already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person
has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in
contravention of a Government Analyst�s report, the Court may, of its own motion
or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused
cause the sample of the drug [(Note: Ins. by Act 21 of 1962, sec.15 (w.e.f.
27-7-1964)) or cosmetic] produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of
Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall
make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the
authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof,
and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
(5) The cost of a test or
analysis made by the Central Drugs Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be
paid by the complainant or accused as the Court shall direct.
COMMENTS
(i) Section 25 does not offend
Article 21 of the Constitution as it has sufficiently protected the basic right
of an accused to defend himself; T.Babulal v.Drugs Inspector, Madras, 1969 Cri
LJ 699: (1970) 1 M LJ 124.
(ii) There can be no prejudice
to the accused if the Drugs Inspector, instead of sending the sample to the
Government Analyst, sends it to a higher authority namely the Central Drugs
Laboratory; Ram Shankar Misra v. State of U.P., (1980) 1 SCC 255.
(iii) The Public Analyst can
analyse the sample himself or cause it to be analysed by some other person;
Bechan v.State, AIR 1966 All 91:1966 Cri LJ 122.
(iv) It is not necessary to
mention in the analysis report the methods or technological processes adopted by
the Analyst; Dhian Singh v.Municipal Board, Saharanpur, AIR 1970 SC 318: (1969)
2 SCC 371.
(v) If accused wants to call the
Public Analyst as a witness it is his duty to take appropriate steps; Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Asa Ram, 1972 Cri LJ 1651 (Del.).
|
