ย
The expression “conclusive proof has been defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. According to the definition “conclusive proof” given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act when one fact is declared by the Evidence Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it. It means that what is declared to be conclusive proof, in any provision of the Evidence Act, would not only be the satisfactory evidence of the fact, it would also be unrebuttable evidence of that fact. Thus, the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act provides two things:- (1) it provides that what is declared to be the conclusive proof of any fact, shall be sufficient evidence to prove that fact; and (2) that no party shall be permitted to adduce evidence to disprove that fact.
ย If the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act is applicable to any fact, then both the consequence mentioned above would occur, which means that what is declared to be conclusive proof shall not only be sufficient evidence of the concerned fact, the parties would not have any right to adduce evidence to disprove that fact. On the other hand, if the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act does not apply to any evidence, which is declared to be conclusive by or any law other than the evidence Act, then only the first consequence would arise and the second would not arise. In other words, if any law other than the Evidence Act declares any fact to be conclusive evidence of some other fact, but does not make: the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act applicable to such evidence, then the evidence which is declared to be conclusive shall be regarded as sufficient evidence of the concerned fact, but the parlies would not be prohibited from adducing evidence to disprove that fact. On the other hand, if any law other than the Evidence Act declares a fact to be conclusive evidence of some other feet and further provides that the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act shall be applicable to such evidence, then the evidence would not only be sufficient to prove the concerned fact, the parlies would also be precluded from adducing evidence to disprove that fact.
In view of this, the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, have the effect of declaring the report of the Government Analyst to be sufficient evidence of the facts mentioned in the report. When the person from whom sample was taken or the person whose name, address or other particulars are furnished under Section 18A of the Act notifies his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of analysis, the prosecution as well as the Court, are apprised of the above mentioned intention of the accused to controvert the report of the government Analyst.
The effect of Sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act is that the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory is declared conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. It means that if there be any inconsistency between the report of the Government Analyst (delivered to the Inspector under Sub-section (1) of Section 25) and the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory (prepared under Sub-section (4) of Section 25), it is the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory that would be the conclusive evidence and not the report of the Government Analyst. In other words, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (4) of Section 25, it may be said that the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory supersedes the report of the Government Analyst, to the extent it is inconsistent with the report of the Government Analyst. Sub-section (4) of Section 25 gives a valuable right to the prosecution, the Court and the accused persons, to send one of the samples to the Central Drugs Laboratory for analysis so that the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory may be obtained and it may be used as evidence of the facts slated therein, whether such report supports the case of the prosecution or it supports the defence of the accused. In fact Sub-section (4) of Section 25 gives valuable right not only to the accused persons, it also gives valuable right to the prosecution and to the Court as mentioned above. The right conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act does not appear to be controlled in any manner by any Act or omission on the part of the prosecution, the Court or the accused person(s). I, therefore, hold that the rights conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act can be availed of whether the accused whether he has or has not notified his intention under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 to controvert the report of the analysis. In order to avail of the benefits of Sections 25(3) of the Act, it was not sufficient for the petitioner “to reserve his right to adduce evidence in controversion of the report”, it was further necessary for the petitioner to notify in writing that he intended to exercise the right to adduce evidence in controversion of the report in a positive manner. I, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that by sending the letter dated 25th April, 89, the petitioner No. 1 notified its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of analysis. [Dueful Laboratory And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.ย Equivalent citations: 1998 CriLJ 4534, 1999 (1) WLC 498 ]
