1 CGHC010201772026 2026:CGHC:41461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 770 of 2026 Satish Kumar Ambuwani S/o Rajkumar Ambuwani Aged About 39 Years R/o Purani Hatri Bazar Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner/accused versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Drug Inspector, Food And Drug Administration Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (23rd September, 2026) This revision has been preferred under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.4.2026 passed by Special Judge (under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940), Raigarh in Drug and 2 Cosmetic Act Case No.1/2026 whereby application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1940”) has been rejected. 02. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 21.7.2025 the Drugs and Cosmetic Inspector inspected the cosmetic shop of the petitioner and seized Panderm ++ cream and six other drugs. Panderm ++ cream was sent for examination to the State Laboratory, Raipur, which reported the drug to be spurious. Thereafter, the report was sent to the petitioner/accused and other co-accused (father of the petitioner). Subsequently, a complaint was filed on 23.12.2025 before the Special Court (under Drugs and Cosmetics Act), Raigarh. On 15.1.2026 the petitioner filed an application under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 for testing of sample given to him in controversion to the report submitted by the Government Analyst, which has been rejected by learned Special Court. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/accused could not file application under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 within stipulated period as copy of the test report was not supplied to him and he was arrested in the instant case on 6.11.2025 and released on regular bail on 18.12.2025. Thus, there is a reasonable cause in favour of the petitioner for not filing application for cross-testing of the sample within the stipulated period of 28 days. He 3 further submits that Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 provides discretion to invoke power for rechecking of sample, therefore, the Special Court ought to have allowed the application in the interest of justice as it is a settled law that the endeavour of the Court should be to advance the cause of substantive justice and adjudicate the matter on its merits, rather than defeat a legitimate claim on mere technicalities. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside the application filed by the petitioner under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 be allowed. 04. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned order. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 06. Perusal of the application dated 15.1.2026 (Annexure P/3) filed by the petitioner under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 shows that the petitioner sought cross-testing of the sample given to him in controversion to the report submitted by the Government Analyst. The aforesaid prayer of the petitioner shows that he wants that the sample given to him under Section 23(4) of the Act of 1940, be got tested from Central Drugs Laboratory whereas Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940 does not stipulate that the sample given to the accused under Section 23(4) has to be got tested by the Magistrate, rather the sample of the drugs/cosmetics produced before the Magistrate under Section 23(4) of the Act of 1940 has to be got tested from the Central Drugs 4 Laboratory by the Magistrate of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is seeking relief of testing of the sample given to him under Section 23(4) of the Act of 1940, which is not permissible as has been contemplated in Section 25(4). 07. Though the learned Special Court has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay but there is not only delay in filing such application, but the application itself suffers from inherent legal infirmity, as has been observed above, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant revision being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.09.24 17:46:24 +0530