ORDER : We have heard Mr. Arun Bharadwaj, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants - State of Haryana and learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length today. 2. Two points have been urged before us in this Appeal, by way of Special Leave, before this Court. 3. We have carefully examined the impugned order so passed by the High Court. 4. In our opinion, the High Court came to the conclusion with regard to the benefit which has been given in favour of the respondents under Section 33-M of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in question. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly conceded that the point which has been decided by the High Court cannot give a benefit to the respondents in view of the fact that the said Section 33-M does not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case in favour of the respondents. In view of that, we do not find that the reasoning given by the High Court can be sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly that part of the Order so passed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction is set aside. 6. The other point which has been urged before us regarding discrepancy in the sample and on the said point, it appears that the tablets which were in blister strip packing were recovered from the custody of the respondents and after the perusal of the Report of the Government Analyst, Haryana being Exhibit 'P-8' reveals that the description of the sample was "white elliptical tablets with a break-line on one side each tablet in metallic strip", the High Court came to the conclusion that the tablets which were recovered were in blister strip packing whereas the sample which was sent for chemical analysis was in metallic strip and, therefore, there was some discrepancy which stands in favour of the respondents before us and allowed the said revision application in favour of the respondents. 7. We have taken into account the original Exhibit 'P-8' which has been placed before us and after comparing the same, it appears that the description which has been given by the High Court is in terms of the said Exhibit is totally identical as the description has been stated in the said Certificate of Test or Analysis by the Government Analyst. Such being the position in the matter, in our opinion, the High Court has not done any wrong with regard to the said point and has perfectly came to the conclusion that the Courts below have erred in convicting and sentencing the respondents for offences under the said Act. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants – State tried to satisfy us on the question that the said point has not been urged by the respondents at that point of time before the Courts. On the question whether the said point was not urged by the respondents – accused herein, it appears from the facts and the point which has been dealt with by the High Court that the said fact has been specifically taken into account by the said Court and on such point, the question has been answered in favour of the respondents. 9. In such circumstances, we do not intend to interfere with the impugned order so passed by the High Court and the order passed by the said Court on the said point is affirmed by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants – State of Haryana & Anr. is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.