Statutory notice to controvert analyst report is mandatory before seeking fresh drug sample testing and quashing relief.

The right to seek fresh testing of a drug sample arises only after the accused complies with the statutory notice requirement to contest the Government Analyst's report. Under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, timely notice of an intention to adduce contrary evidence is a condition precedent to sending the sample for further examination, and failure to invoke that procedure leaves the analyst's report conclusive. On that footing, delay in launching the prosecution did not render the complaint unsustainable, and the challenge based on the use of a later Pharmacopoeia was left for trial rather than quashing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants could seek quashing of the complaint and challenge the analyst's report despite not expressing, within the prescribed time, an intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report, and whether delay in launching the prosecution made the complaint unsustainable.

Analysis: The analyst's report is conclusive unless the accused complies with the statutory procedure for controverting it. Under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the manufacturer must notify within 28 days an intention to adduce evidence in contradiction of the Government Analyst's report before the sample can be sent for further test. The appellants did not disclose that such option was exercised within limitation, and their request was directed only to the manner of analysis. Once the statutory requirement was not fulfilled, the delay in filing the complaint ceased to be material. The plea based on the use of the Indian Pharmacopoeia 1996 instead of the Indian Pharmacopoeia 1985 was left to be considered at trial and did not justify quashing.

Conclusion: The appellants had no enforceable right to insist on fresh analysis in the absence of timely notice under Section 25(3), and the complaint was not liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to have a sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory arises only when the accused has first complied with the statutory requirement of timely notice of intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst's report.

---