1 cr-wp-2259-09 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2259 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner Vs. Bajee Erachsha Patell and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Petitioner-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned APP for the Petitioner-State of Maharashtra. 2 The respondents-original accused were facing prosecution in RCC No. 490 of 2001 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They preferred an application Exh. 20 in the said case, wherein they prayed for discharge. By order dated 8.4.2003 the learned Magistrate allowed the application Exh. 20 of the respondent-accused for discharge and the respondent-accused came to be discharged for the offence punishable under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 16(1)(a), 34 punishable under 2 cr-wp-2259-09 Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Against the said order, Revision Application i.e. Cri. Revision Application No. 52 of 2003 came to be preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. By order dated 18.11.2008, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same. Hence, this petition. 3 The main ground on which the learned Magistrate discharged the respondent is that there is no compliance under Section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 25(2) reads as under: “ 25. Reports of Government Analysts.---(1)--------- (2) The Inspector on receipt thereof shall 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 18A], and shall retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. ” 4 The learned APP submitted that the office copy of the letter and the report of the Government Analyst was given to Mr. Anil Helange who was working as a Production Manager in the Company. In order to 3 cr-wp-2259-09 support his contention, he has placed reliance on letter dated 16.11.2000 written by Mr. Anil Helange wherein he has stated that he is the Production Manager of the Company and that he received the letter dated 30.8.2000 along with the report of the Analyst dated 25.8.2000. However, Section 25 stipulates that the copy of the report shall be delivered to the person from whom the sample had been taken. The learned APP was unable to point out any material to show that Anil Helange was the person from whom the sample was taken or that Mr. Anil Helange was the person whose name had been disclosed under Section 18(a) of the Act. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference with both the orders below. 5 Writ petition is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]