JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), read with Clause 3 of the Imported Foodgrains (Prohibition of Unauthorized Sale) ORDER :, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Prohibition ORDER :'). Petitioner no. 3 has been convicted under Section 7 of the Act, read with Clause 7 of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licencing ORDER :, 1963. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, in the night between the 29th and 30th September, 1967, at Chatra towns ome constables on night duty found petitioner nos. 1 and 2 coming on a bullock cart. On search, it was found that four bags of imported wheat and one bag of flour, which was the product of the imported wheat, along with some other articles, were loaded on the said bullock cart. On being questioned, petitioners 1 and 2 stated before the constables that petitioner no. 3 and two others had given them those bags of wheat and flour to be carried to village Jori to the house of their relations. It is the further case of the prosecution that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were taken to the police station and a written report was lodged before the Officer in charge. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, including petitioner no. 3, who was the owner of a fair price shop. In due course, the petitioners were put on trial. During the trial their defence was that they had not committed any offence, as they were not transporting any wheat or flour in contravention of any Control ORDER :. The trial court, on a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that petitioners 1 and 2 were in possession of 8 maunds and 2½ seers of imported wheat and 25ft seers of Ata of the imported wheat, in contravention of Clause 3 of the Prohibition ORDER :. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the trial court held that, although there was no direct evidence to show that petitioner no.3 had given the wheat to petitioner nos. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the trial court held that, although there was no direct evidence to show that petitioner no.3 had given the wheat to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for being carried to village Jori, yet, on a consideration of the circumstances, referred to by it in the JUDGMENT :, it was clear that the wheat in question had come out from the fair price shop belonging to petitioner no. 3. On the aforesaid findings, the petitioners were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier. Against the said JUDGMENT : of the trial court, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Hazaribagh. 3. In the present revision application Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad No.2, appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the prosecution has failed to prove that the wheat in question was imported wheat so as to make the provisions of the Prohibition ORDER :applicable, calling for punishment under Section 7 of the Act. So far as petitioner no. 3 is concerned, learned counsel has raised a separate argument. According to him, there is no material on the record to connect petitioner no. 3, in any manner whatsoever with the alleged possession or removal of the so-called imported wheat. 4. The expression 'imported foodgrains has been defined in Clause 2 (b) of the Prohibition ORDER :in these words- "2. In this ORDER :, unless the context otherwise requires : (b) Imported foodgrains means food grains imported from outside India by the Central Government and supplied by that Government either directly or through a State Government, to authorised dealers for sale to the public," A bare reference to the said definition will show that imported food grains mean foodgrains which have been imported from outside India by the Central Government and supplied by it, either directly or through a State Government to authorized dealers for sale to the Public. Obviously, this will not include those food grains which are grown in India. 5. Clause 3 of the Prohibition ORDER :puts a restriction on sale and storage of imported foodgrains. Clause 3 reads as under :- "No person other than an authorised dealer shall sell, or store or offer for sale, imported food grain's in any quantity, either split or unsplit or mixed with other grains. 5. Clause 3 of the Prohibition ORDER :puts a restriction on sale and storage of imported foodgrains. Clause 3 reads as under :- "No person other than an authorised dealer shall sell, or store or offer for sale, imported food grain's in any quantity, either split or unsplit or mixed with other grains. " Thus Clause 3 will not be a bar to food grains which are not covered by the aforesaid definition of 'imported foodgrains'. The result is that, if the prosecution wants to level a charge against a person that he was either selling or was in possession of imported wheat. it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the wheat in question was an imported one. Learned counsel has placed the JUDGMENT :s of the Courts below and has also referred to the evidence of deferent witnesses examined at the trial. Most of the witnesses have stated that the wheat in question was ‘Sarkari’, perhaps, meaning thereby controlled wheat. Controlled wheat and imported wheat are not the same thing. If a person is found to be in possession of controlled wheat, he will not be deemed to have violated the provisions of Clause 3 of the Prohibition ORDER :. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, however, has drawn our attention to the fact that the Courts below, for the purpose of holding that the wheat in question was imported one, have relied on the report of the Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, which was produced at the trial by the prosecution and has been marked as Ext.2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the said report in paragraph 11 of his JUDGMENT : for the purpose of holding that from the said report it had been proved that the wheat in question was imported wheat. The Analyser of the sample of the wheat has not been examined by the prosecution. The report appears to have been tendered in evidence and marked as Ext.2. Now the question is as to whether this report (Ext.2) is admissible in evidence. The report bears the signature purporting to be that, of the Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. But it has not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. Now the question is as to whether this report (Ext.2) is admissible in evidence. The report bears the signature purporting to be that, of the Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India. But it has not been proved in accordance with the Evidence Act. In absence of any specific provision in the Prohibition ORDER :or in the Act, the question to be decided is as to whether, in absence of formal proof, the said report can be looked into and relied upon for the purpose of holding that the wheat in question was imported wheat. Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') is an exception to the general rule of evidence regarding proving the contents of documents. Section 510 (1) of the Code reads as follows" 510 (1) any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or the Chief Inspector of Explosives or the Director of Finger Print Bureau or an officer of the Mint, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used its evidence in any inquiry, trial or proceeding under this Code." Under Section 510, Chemical Examiner's report, or the report of the Chief Inspector of Explosives or the report of the Director of Finger Print Bureau or the report of an officer of the Mint may be used as evidence without being formally proved. There is nothing in that section to show that even the report of an Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Government of India, giving his opinion regarding the nature of the wheat will also be admissible without being formally proved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, in this connection, referred to the decisions in (1) Champaklal V. Natwar Lal (1970 Criminal Law Journal 128) and (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Ram Dayal (1970 Criminal Law Journal 221) where it has been held that the report of Public Analyst is not admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code. In my opinion, the report of the Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture will not be admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code. 7. In my opinion, the report of the Analyser of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture will not be admissible in evidence under Section 510 of the Code. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has, however, drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under Sub section (5) of Section 13, any certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Sub-section (2), if produced in any proceeding under that Act or under Section 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code, may be used as evidence of facts stated therein in any proceeding under that Act, or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code. Sub-section (5) of Section 13 runs thus :- "(5) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under Sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, may by used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code." In my opinion, the said section does not help the contention of the learned counsel for the State. The said Sub-section (5) of Section 13 makes it absolutely clear that a report signed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory is to be used in evidence in any proceeding under that Act, or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code. I Obviously, that provision will not make a report of the Analyser of the Ministry of. Food and Agriculture admissible in a proceeding relating to contravention of the provisions of the Prohibition ORDER :. In my JUDGMENT :, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State and it has to be rejected. 8. I Obviously, that provision will not make a report of the Analyser of the Ministry of. Food and Agriculture admissible in a proceeding relating to contravention of the provisions of the Prohibition ORDER :. In my JUDGMENT :, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State and it has to be rejected. 8. If it is held that the provisions of Section 510 of the Code are not applicable and there is no specific provision in the Act or in the Prohibition ORDER :, then it has to be held that the report of the Analyser was not admissible in evidence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in relying on the said report for the purpose of holding that it had been proved on the basis of the said report that the wheat in question was an imported one. In absence of any oral or documentary evidence on the point, it has to be held that there is no material on record to show that petitioners 1 and 2 were carrying imported wheat. The result is that the conviction of petitioners 1 and 2 for having contravened the provisions of the Prohibition ORDER :, read with Section 7 of the Act, has to be set aside. If the conviction of petitioners 1 and 2 is set aside, there is no question of upholding the conviction of petitioner no. 3, who is alleged to have supplied the said wheat to petitioners 1 and 2 to be transported to village Jori. 9. In the result, the application in revision is allowed, the ORDER :of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners is set aside and they are acquitted. I agree. Application allowed