JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted only one point without arguing on the other facts on merit. His only contention is that the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the Petitioner as provided under Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and, as such the prosecution is bad and the conviction is to be set aside. 3. This Court has already held in Magrilal Agarwala v. State of Orissa 46 (1978) C.L.T. 45 (Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1977 decided on 21st July, 1978) as follows: By virtue of Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as amended, it is incumbent on the part of the Food Inspector to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in, form III from the public analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent. The Legislature intended that the right of liberty of the subject should also be safeguarded. With this view in mind, the Legislature had imposed several duties on the Food Inspector so that the accused should have a fair chance in meeting the case against him, and to defend his case against any improper action on the part of the complainant. It was further hold that when the report of the public analyst was not sent to the accused even until the filing of the complaint, the accused could be acquitted without his pleading prejudice. In the instant case, P.W. 1 had admitted that the report of the analyst was not sent to the Petitioner and, as such, on the aforesaid principles laid down, the accused should be deemed to have been prejudiced and, as such, he is entitled to acquittal. The appellate Court has not accepted the aforesaid view of this Court on the following reasons. The appellate Court has not accepted the aforesaid view of this Court on the following reasons. But in the present case there is absolutely no evidence that it was not served on the Appellant. P.W. 1 is a public servant and it can be presumed that he must have complied with the provisions of law and must have served a copy as required under the rules. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that a copy of the Public Analyst had been supplied to the accused. There cannot be any presumption of such supply under law. The finding of the Court below is completely erroneous and he has completely misconceived the position of law as enumerated in the aforesaid decision of this Court. In view of this position of law, the conviction passed against the Petitioner is not sustainable. 4. In the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Final Result : Allowed