T A KRISHNASWAMY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted by a learned Magistrate under S. 18 (a)(ii) read with S. 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 contained of 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 the 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.

(2.) The prosecution produced in evidence of the charge that the drug was misbranded within the meaning of S. 18 (a) (ii), that is, its label bore a statement which was false as being in variance with the components of the drug a certificate to that effect given by the Government Analyst. The label stated that the drug contained Benozoic 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 indicated 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.

(3.) The only question is whether thus report was admissible in evidence to prove that the contents of the drug were so at variance with the statement on the lable and therefore the drug had been misbranded. Sub-section (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 other two courts below.