# T. A. KRISHNASWAMY v. STATE OF MADRAS

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 31
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1964
- **Bench:** A. K. Sarkar, J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-a-krishnaswamy-v-state-of-madras-3707
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Indian Drugs Act, 1940, s. 25 (3 )-Analyst's report-Not in prescribed form-if admissible .
The appellant was convicted under s. !S(a)(ii) ands. 27 of the' Drugs
Act for having manufactured and exhibited for sale a drug which did
not contain the ingredients in the proportion mentioned in the label pasted
on the container of the drug.
The prosecution produced in evidence. a
certificate given by the Government Analyst.
In appeal ro this Court,
the appellant contended that in the absence of the protocols, the report
was not in the prescribed form and hence was not admissible in evidence.
HEU) :
Rule 46 and Form 13 contemplate analysis and test as two
different things for otherwise both words would not have been mentioned,
nor the word "or" been put between them.
It is true that the rule and
form require the protocols of a test should be stated but they do not
require any protocols to be stated in the report of an analysis. In the
present case the report only gave the result of the analysis; it did not
give the result of any test; nor did it say that any test bad been carried
out.
Indeed, no dispute existed as to the components constituting the
drug, the only dispute being as to the quantities in which they were
so contained. That being so, the report was in the prescribed form "'1d
was fully admissible in evidence. [33 0-E]
It was irrelevant to consider whether the Analyst should also have
carried out a test. Even if he should have and dicl not, that would not
prevent the report of the result of the analysis from being admitted in
evidence. [33 E-F]
Raj Ki£han v. Stale of U.P .. A.I.R. 1960 All 460, referred to.

## Text

A
B
-•
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
T. A. KRISHNASWAMY
v.
STATE OF MADRAS
December 10, 1965
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J
Indian Drugs Act, 1940, s. 25 (3 )-Analyst's report-Not in prescribed form-if admissible .
The appellant was convicted under s. !S(a)(ii) ands. 27 of the' Drugs
Act for having manufactured and exhibited for sale a drug which did
not contain the ingredients in the proportion mentioned in the label pasted
on the container of the drug.
The prosecution produced in evidence. a
certificate given by the Government Analyst.
In appeal ro this Court,
the appellant contended that in the absence of the protocols, the report
was not in the prescribed form and hence was not admissible in evidence.
HEU) :
Rule 46 and Form 13 contemplate analysis and test as two
different things for otherwise both words would not have been mentioned,
nor the word "or" been put between them.
It is true that the rule and
form require the protocols of a test should be stated but they do not
require any protocols to be stated in the report of an analysis. In the
present case the report only gave the result of the analysis; it did not
give the result of any test; nor did it say that any test bad been carried
out.
Indeed, no dispute existed as to the components constituting the
drug, the only dispute being as to the quantities in which they were
so contained. That being so, the report was in the prescribed form "'1d
was fully admissible in evidence. [33 0-E]
It was irrelevant to consider whether the Analyst should also have
carried out a test. Even if he should have and dicl not, that would not
prevent the report of the result of the analysis from being admitted in
evidence. [33 E-F]
Raj Ki£han v. Stale of U.P .. A.I.R. 1960 All 460, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 40
of 1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 24, 1963, of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 22 of 1961.
R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant.
A. Ranganadham Chetty and A.. V. Rangam, for the respondent.
•
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sarkar, J.
The appellant was convicted by a learned
magistrate under s. 18(a)(ii) read withs. 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 container of
St;PREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966J 3 S.C.R.
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 !he 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.
The prosecution produced in evidence of the charge that the
drug was misbranded within !he meaning of s. 18(a)(ii). that
is, its label bore a statement which was false as being at variance
wi1h the components of the drug, a certificate to that effect given
by the Government Analyst. The label stated that the drug contained Benzoic 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.
The only question is whether this report was admissible in
evidence to prove that the contends of the drug were so at variance
with the statement on the label and therefore the drug had been
misbranded. Sul:>-scction (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.
Ruic 46 of the rules made under the Act provides that the
Government Analvst shall "after the test or analysis has been
completed .... forthwith supply to the In~pcctor a report in triplicale in Form I 3 of the result of the test or analysis together with
full protocols of the tests applied". Titis is the prescribed form
of the report.
Head 7 of Fonn I 3 is in these words : "Remits
of test or analysis with protocols of rests applied".
!t appear'
that the Drugs Inspector who obtained the samples from
the
appellant's shop duly forwarded a part of these to the Government
Analyst with a letter stating that they were sent f0r "rest or
analysis".
..
c
D
•
E
F
G
H
}>
"
'•
'
KRISHNASWAMY v. MADRAS (Sarkar, J.)
A
Now, the report of the Analyst did not state the protocols of
B
c
D
E
F
G
any test.
It is said that r. 46 and Form 13 indicated that the
protocols of the tests applied had to be stated in the report. The·
contention is that in the absence of the protocols the report was
not in the prescribed form and was hence not admissible ill' -
evidence.
It appears that protocols of test means the details of
the process of test.
The question then is, do r. 46 and Form 13 require that in the
present case the protocols of tests had to be stated? We do not
think they do,
Obviously, the rule and the form contemplate
analysis and test as two different things, for otherwise both words
would not have been mentioned, nor the word 'or' been put
between them. It is true that the rule and the form require that
tht1 protocols of a test should be stated,
They do not require
any protocols to be stated in the report of an analysis. Now in the
present case what the report did was only to give the result of the
analysis. It did not give the result of any test. Nor does it say that
any test had been carried out. Indeed no dispute exists as to the
components constituting the drug, the only dispute being as to
the quantities in which they were so contained. The report only
stated the quantities of them found on analysis. That being so,
in our view, the report is in the prescribed form and is fully
admissible in evidence.
The Inspector in his letter to the Analyst no doubt stated that
the sample was sent to him for "test o·r analysis", But what the
Analyst did was only to make an analysis. It is irrelevant to consider whether he should also have carried out a test.
Even if
he should have and did not, that would not prevent the report
of the result of the analysis from being admitted in evidence. That
report would nonetheless be conclusive evidence under s. 25 (3)
of the. Act.
Our attention was drawn to the case of Raj Kishan v. The State
of Uttar Pradesh. (1)
There it was observed that when a report
did not state the protocols of the test applied, it could not be said
to be a report in the prescribed form.
It is not clear from the
judgment whether the report in that case purported to be the
report of a test or of an analysis. If that case intended to hold
· that no report of an analysis is in the prescribed form where the
protocols are not stated, we are unable to agree with it.
H
The result is that this appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) A.l.R 1960 All. 460.