2001 (3) TMI 1033 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of prosecution due to non-compliance with Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Right of the manufacturer to test the correctness of the Government Analyst's report.
3. Conclusiveness of the Government Analyst's report under Section 25(3) of the Act.
4. Interpretation of the legislative provisions in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. Judicial approach towards legislative lacuna and public health concerns.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Prosecution Due to Non-Compliance with Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:

The appellant contended that the prosecution was not maintainable because the Drug Inspector did not deliver one portion of the sample to the manufacturer, as mandated by Section 23(4)(iii) of the Act. The Sessions Judge and the High Court rejected this contention, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. Right of the Manufacturer to Test the Correctness of the Government Analyst's Report:

The appellant argued that the non-supply of the sample deprived them of a valuable right to test the correctness of the Government Analyst's report. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Section 25(3), which allows the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose details were disclosed under Section 18A to adduce evidence in controversion of the report within 28 days.

3. Conclusiveness of the Government Analyst's Report Under Section 25(3) of the Act:

The Court clarified that the conclusiveness of the Government Analyst's report is conditional. If the person who receives the report does not notify their intention to adduce evidence in controversion within 28 days, the report becomes conclusive evidence against them. However, the manufacturer, who is not entitled to receive the report as of right, can still challenge the report by requesting the court to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4).

4. Interpretation of the Legislative Provisions in Light of Article 21 of the Constitution:

The Court emphasized that any legal provision that deprives an accused of the remedy to disprove evidence against them is inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court leaned towards an interpretation that allows the manufacturer to challenge the report of the Government Analyst, ensuring that their fundamental rights are not violated.

5. Judicial Approach Towards Legislative Lacuna and Public Health Concerns:

The Court noted that acquitting manufacturers on technical grounds due to legislative lacuna would be hazardous to public health. The Court interpreted the provisions in a manner that avoids absurd consequences and ensures the administration of criminal justice aligns with the statute's objectives. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the prosecution's maintainability and the manufacturer's right to challenge the Government Analyst's report through other means provided by the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution's maintainability, clarified the manufacturer's rights under the Act, and ensured that the legislative provisions are interpreted in a way that protects public health and aligns with constitutional principles.