No samples of the drugs seized by the complaining drug inspector were taken and transported to the relevant laboratory for analysis of the value of evidence 27 (2a) and 27 (4) of the Drugs Act, 1940. The drug could not be called, although the drug inspector alleged that the drug seized by them was similar to the drug manufactured by a local pharmaceutical company, although he admitted that the aforementioned pharmaceutical company was not contacted. What and who failed to obtain the company's view of the drug was acquitted. Under the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
