The court emphasized the admissibility of the public analyst's report as substantive evidence, despite non-compliance with certain rules.

( 1 ) 1. The appeal by the Food Inspector, City municipal Council, Mangalore is directed against the judgment of acquittal dt. Decr. 21, 1981, passed by the I Addl. CJM, mangalore in CC 121/1979 acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 16 (1) (a) read with S. 7 of the Food Adulteration act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE material facts leading to the case on hand are as under : on 31-3-1979 at about 7-30 a. m. the complainant PW 1 found the accused selling milk from a can kept in the autorickshaw MYG 5300, which had been parked in front of the Rajeswari Bhavan Hotel, boloor in Mangalore City. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of milk from the accused for the purpose of analysis and paid Rs. 1. 50 as the price thereof. He obtained a receipt from the accused as per ex. P 2. The Food Inspector PW 1 sampled the milk purchased from the accused in the presence of the accused and panch witnesses as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The. Food Inspector issued a notice in Form No. VI as per Ex. P 3 informing him that the purpose of the purchase of the milk was for getting it analysed at the hands of the public analyst. He prepared the mahazar Ex. P 4. It was not only signed by the accused but also by the panch witnesses. The said sample was divided and put in equal quantities into three clean dry bottles. 24 drops of formaline were added to each of the three bottles. The said bottles were sealed with the paper containing signatures of the panchas and the accused. The Food Inspector sent one of the sample bottles to the public analyst by railway parcel along with memorandum containing specimen seal as per Ex. P. 5. He sent a copy of the memorandum with a specimen seal separately to the public analyst by registered post AD. Ex. P. 6 is the postal acknowledgment in token of the public analyst having received the sample seal sent by registered post. The Food Inspector then handed over the remaining two bottles to the Health Officer of the Municipality. The public analyst after analysing the sample immediately sent a report Ex. P. 7 to the effect that the sample was adulterated. The Food Inspector after obtaining the sanction from the Dist. Health Officer as per Ex. P 8, filed a complaint Ex. P 10 against the accused. The Health Officer of the Municipality sent a copy of Ex. P 7 to the accused along with the a covering letter as per Ex. P 11 by registered post. Ex. P 12 is the registered acknowledgment signed by the accused for having received the registered letter.

( 3 ) THE complainant Food Inspector examined himself as PW 1 and marked exs. P 1 to P 12 in support of the prosecution case before charge. The learned magistrate found on the said evidence that a prima facie case under S. 16 (1) (a) (i) read with S. 7 of the Act had been made out against the accused. Accordingly he framed a charge against the accused for the said offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. As desired by the accused, PW 1 was offered for further examination. The accused further cross-examined PW 1. The prosecution examined pw 2 and closed its case.

( 4 ) THE accused was examined under S. 313 Cr. PC and he denied the truth of the prosecution evidence.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate concluded that he was satisfied with the evidence of the Food Inspector as it was both trustworthy and reliable and that the Food Inspector had purchafed the sample milk from the accused and sampled the same as set out in Ex. P 4 and the Food Inspector had complied with all the requirements as per S. 11 and other provisions of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act. However, the learned Magistrate found that rule 7 had not been complied with, that it was mandatory and on that ground the learned Magistrate ordered acquittal of the accused.

( 6 ) THE Food Inspector, being aggrieved by the acquit al has come up with the present aapeal.

( 7 ) THE points that arise for our consideration are : i) Whet