LEKHA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Lekha has been convicted under Sec. 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and sentenced to six months, and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 in default further R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 30-1-1976 at 11-30 A.M. id applicant was found selling adulterated buffalo milk in Mohalla Kali Pagri Amroha. A sample of the said milk taken by the Food Inspector was analysis found by the Public Analyst vide his report dated 10-3-1976 to hat 0.3% fat contents and 9.5% non-fatty solids, thus being deficient in fact contents by about 95% of the prescribed standard for buffalo milk. The applicants case was of denial. He contended that no sample had been tab from him and he had been falsely implicated because he did not offer illegal gratification to the Food Inspector. Both the courts below have believed is prosecution case and convicted the applicant.

(3.) On behalf of the applicant it was contended that there had been a breach of Rule 9(j) in the present case and a copy of the Public Analysts report had not been sent to the applicant within ten days of the receipt of the said report. The evidence of the Food Inspector was that a copy of the Public Analyst report had been sent to the applicant by the office of which registration receipt Ex. Ka-9 is on record. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, relied on the statement of the Food Inspector where he stated that he could not give the exact date on which this copy was sent (the date stamp on the receipt is indistinct). He also relied upon the admission that there were four cases pending against the applicant and the receipt did not show the case number or the sample number. It was urged that the failure of the Food Inspector to give the exact date of the receipt to show the sample number means that there was a breach of Rule 9(j). I cannot agree. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it has to be presumed that the official acts once shown to have been done were regularly performed. It is, therefore, safe to hold that the registered cover of which Ex. Ka. 9 is the receipt contained the Public Analysts report relating to the sample in issue in this case. The mere fact that four other cases are pending against the applicant cannot warrant a suspicion that the receipt Ex. Ka-9 relates to the sending of the Public Analyst report regarding some other sample. The argument must, therefore, be rejected.