Government Analyst report under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act remains challengeable where the manufacturer was not served with the statutory copy.

Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a manufacturer is not automatically entitled to a portion of the sample or the Government Analyst's report when the sample was taken from a retailer and the statutory conditions in Section 23(4)(iii) are not met. However, Section 25(3) must be read so that its conclusive effect applies only to a person who actually receives the statutory copy and does not controvert it within time; otherwise the provision would deny a real opportunity to challenge the report. A manufacturer not served with the report may still dispute it by other evidence and may seek analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the manufacturer is entitled as of right to a portion of the sample and a copy of the Government Analyst's report when the sample was taken from a retailer and the manufacturer was later impleaded; (ii) Whether Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can be read so as to deny such a manufacturer any effective opportunity to challenge the analyst's report, consistently with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, in a prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the manufacturer is entitled as of right to a portion of the sample and a copy of the Government Analyst's report when the sample was taken from a retailer and the manufacturer was later impleaded.

Analysis: The sampling scheme under Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is structured according to the source from which the sample is taken. Where the sample is drawn from a retailer, the Inspector must restore one portion to the person from whom it is taken, send one portion to the Government Analyst, produce one portion before the Court, and send the third portion only where the person from whom the sample was taken has disclosed the name and particulars of the manufacturer or earlier supplier under Section 18A. The special entitlement to a portion of the sample under Section 23(4)(iii) therefore operates only in the circumstances stated in that clause, and the manufacturer is not automatically entitled to such supply merely because he is later made an accused. Section 32A also contemplates impleadment of a manufacturer during trial, which reinforces that the statutory scheme does not depend upon prior service of a sample portion in every case.

Conclusion: The manufacturer has no absolute statutory right to receive a portion of the sample or the analyst's report when the sample is taken from a retailer and the statutory conditions of Section 23(4)(iii) are not attracted.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can be read so as to deny such a manufacturer any effective opportunity to challenge the analyst's report, consistently with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 25(3) declares the Government Analyst's report to be evidence of the facts stated therein and, in terms, conclusive unless the person who received a copy of the report notifies an intention to adduce evidence in controversion within twenty-eight days. Read literally and without qualification, that provision could leave a manufacturer who never receives a copy of the report without any practical means to controvert it. To avoid a construction that would effectively deny a criminal accused any remedy and render the provision vulnerable under Article 21, the conclusive effect is confined to those persons who actually receive the statutory copy and fail to act within time. A manufacturer not entitled to a copy of the report may still challenge it by other admissible evidence and may also request the Court to send the retained sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4), whose report, once obtained, is conclusive.

Conclusion: The provision is to be construed so that the manufacturer is not barred from disputing the analyst's report; he may challenge it by other evidence and by resort to Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was upheld by a reading that preserves the accused manufacturer's ability to dispute the analyst's report, but the appellant was not entitled to succeed on the contention that non-supply of a sample portion or report vitiated the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government Analyst's report is conclusive only against persons who receive the statutory copy and fail to controvert it within time, while a manufacturer not so served must still be afforded a real opportunity to dispute the report, including by invoking the Central Drugs Laboratory procedure.

---