Judgment

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. :-This matter arises under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The appellant was a milk-vendor. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk and sent the same for analysis. The Analyst found some deficiency in solids non-fats and opined that it was adulterated. The main point urged before the courts below was that Rule 9(j) was not complied with. The trial court held that it was only directory and convicted the appellant. The appeal filed by him was allowed by the Sessions Judge. The State carried the matter by way of an appeal. to the High Court. A batch of appeals was heard and disposed of by the High Court holding that the rule was directory.

2. In this appeal again the same point is urged and it is further contended that the accused was prejudiced inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the report of the Analyst was sent by registered post to the accused as required under Rule 9(j). We need not go into the question of law in this case. When the Food Inspector was examined, he deposed in his chief-examination that the report of the Analyst was sent to the accused by registered post. He was not cross-examined. The only inference that can be