PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Three of the grounds on which the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of the respondent-accused are totally wrong. It is not always necessary for the Food Inspectors to state in their examination-in-chief Itself that they sent a sample seal to the Public Analyst. It should be presumed that all official acts are done properly until it is disputed that the offical acts were not properly done, in which cases alone there should be strict proof of the official acts having been done as per rules. So far as the adding of the preservative of formalin is concerned, the report of the Public Analyst clearly shows that the sample contained the preservative formalin and that the Analyst separated it before analysing the food sent to him, The mere fact that the Food Inspector did not expressly state In his evidence that the preservative of Formalin was added to the sample need not have been seriously considered by the learned Sessions judge as to conclude that no formalin was added even though from the report of the Analyst there is no scope for such conclusion. No doubt, there was a lapse of about 40 days between the date of the sample and the analysis by the Public Analyst, but this delay is of no consequence in the light of my finding that the preservative of formalin was added to the sample sent to the Public Analyst.

(2.) THERE is, however, one important factor which cannot be ignored and that is the want of proof with regard to the furnishing of a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused, Rule 9 (j) is mandatory and It is incumbent on the Food Inspector to furnish the accused with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst before a complaint is filed In the court, as the accused might challenge the report of the Public Analyst, This salutory and important safeguard has been denied to the accused in the Instant case. Though the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate Court cannot be justified for other reasons, It has to be maintained for this reason. This appeal, by the State is therefore dismissed.