JUDGMENT : C. V. RANE, J. 1 to 4. x x x x 5. Section 23 of the Act relates to the procedure to be followed by the Inspectors while taking samples of drugs for the purpose of being forwarded to the Government Analyst. Sub-Section (4) of Section 23 of the Act, which is relevant for our purposes, inter alia provides that one of the portions of the sample is to be sent to the Government Analyst for test or analysis, the second portion is to be produced before the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted and the third portion is to be sent to the person concerned. Sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act provides "The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-Section (4) of Section 23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form." According to Sub-Section (2) of Section 25, the Inspector on receipt thereof has to deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and another copy to the person, if any whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A and he should retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of that sample. Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 25, which are important for our purposes, read as under : "(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A has, within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-Section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the due or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under Sub-Section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of, the facts stated therein." 6. It is pointed out by the learned advocate for the accused that, even though, the report of the Government Analyst was received in this case in the year 1968, the prosecution was launched against the accused as late as in the year 1972. According to him, if the prosecution was launched immediately on the receipt of the report of the Government Analyst, the accused would have requested the court to cause the sample of the drug to be sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory for test or analysis as contemplated by Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Act. According to Sub-Section (4) of Section 25th report of the Central Drugs Laboratory is the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It is, therefore, urged by the learned advocate for the accused that, as an opportunity to take action under Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 has been denied to the accused, no importance can be attached to the report of the Government Analyst According to the labels affixed on the tins in question, the potency of the drug was limited to one year i.e. till 23.5.1968. As the prosecution was launched in the year 1972, it is argued by the learned advocate for the accused that, no useful purpose would have been served by requesting the court to forward the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory in the year 1972. It is found from the evidence of record and it is not disputed that, vitamin B-1 is liable to deteriorate in quality and also to decompose by efflux of time. It is found from the evidence of record and it is not disputed that, vitamin B-1 is liable to deteriorate in quality and also to decompose by efflux of time. It therefore, cannot be denied that, in the year 1972 vitamin B-1 contents of the tablets were not fit for analysis in the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of finding out as to whether they were of standard quality on or before 23.5.1968. In support of his above argument, the learned advocate for the accused has relied on the decisions in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram AIR 1967 Supreme Court 970 : (1967 Cri LJ 939) and Baldevji Krishnaji v. State, 14 Guj LR 153 : (1973 Cri LJ 1523). Both the above decisions relate to Section 13(2), (3) and (5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the provisions which are to a certain extent similar in material particulars to those of Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act. (x x x x x) In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) the sample was taken on Sample 20, 1961, while it was sent to the Director after October 4, 1963. In the meanwhile, the sample had become decomposed as a result of which the accused could not avail of the relevant provision to get the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The trial Court had acquitted the accused an the acquittal was, confirmed by the High Court. When the matter went to the Supreme Court, their Lordships observed : "It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him. The right is valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by court as conclusive evidence. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein." x x x x x 7. It is true that, in the present case there is no evidence on record to show as to what extent, the vitamin B tablets in question were decomposed. In this connection, however, I have already pointed out that, after a lapse of four years Vitamin B-1 contents of the tablets must have deteriorated to a considerable extent and in that case, the accused were justified in not requesting the court to forward the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the above Act (37 of 1954) provides for sending of the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory for a certificate which in view of Sub-Section (3) supersedes the report given by public Analyst under Sub-Section (1). According to Sub-Section (5), a report given by a Public Analyst unless it is superseded under Sub-Section (3) or a certificate issued by the Director of Central Food Laboratory may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein. Proviso to Sub-Section (5) further provides that a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The above provisions are similar to those of Section 25 of the Act. Proviso to Sub-Section (5) further provides that a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. The above provisions are similar to those of Section 25 of the Act. According to Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Act, a report signed by the Government Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court, before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. In the present case, a cony of the report of the Government Analyst was forwarded by the Drugs Inspector to M/s. Vilco Laboratories with his letter dated 6.4.1968 (vide Ext. 5). In reply to the above letter, the accused No. 5 informed the Director of Drugs by their letter dated 2.5.1968 that, they did not agree with the report of the Government Analyst and that, they would adduce evidence in their defence, if necessary. This shows that, the accused had complied with the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Act. Under there circumstances, the report of the Government Analyst cannot be considered as conclusive as contemplated by Sub-Section (3) of Section 25. Moreover, having complied with the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 25, the accused had a right to request the court to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory for testing and analysis as contemplated by Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Act. In view of the gross delay in launching the prosecution against the accused, they could not take the benefit of Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Act. At this stage, I may incidentally point out that, in view of Sections 6, 11(2) and 25 (4) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the rules made under the Act, it was not open to the accused to submit the sample directly to the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. At this stage, I may incidentally point out that, in view of Sections 6, 11(2) and 25 (4) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the rules made under the Act, it was not open to the accused to submit the sample directly to the Central Drugs Laboratory for the purpose of analysis or test. This shows that, the accused had no other alternative but to request the court under Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Act, to send the sample for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory but, in the circumstances mentioned above, the accused could not avail of that opportunity. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, would be applicable to the present case and relying an those decisions I hold that, merely on the basis of the report of the Government Analyst, it cannot be said that the Vitamin B complex tablets were not of standard quality as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act. The learned Magistrate has not considered this point in its proper perspective and he has based his conclusion merely on the basis of the report of the Government Analyst. For the reasons mentioned above his finding on the point cannot be sustained. x x x x x x Order accordingly.