JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - The applicant describes himself as Ramdhan Singh but was convicted in the name of Chhittar Singh alias Ramdhan Singh under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a line of Rs. 1000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months by the C.J.M. Lalitpur. 2. The brief relevant facts appearing from the record arc that the Food Inspector on 25-7-77 at about 7-00 a.m. look a sample of cow's milk from a person who gave out his name as Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh in the presence of witnesses Prem Chand Jain and Ram Singh constable. The public analyst's report dated 21-8-77 shows the fat and non-fatty solids contents to be only 3.3% and 8.5% respectively. The sanction for prosecution by the C.M.O. was accorded on 3-11-77 in the name of Chhitar Singh son of Daryao Singh resident of Gandhi Nagar, New Basti, Lalitpur which was the address noted by the Food Inspector in the sample taking papers. The prosecution before the C. J. M. commenced on 20-11-77. The summons of the accused issued in the name of Chhittar Singh at the abovementioned address were however, unserved because Daryao Singh wrote that he had no son by the name of Chhittar Singh and the address was wrong. Thereupon the Food Inspector applied to the Magistrate for fresh summons to be given to him for service with the assistance of the police. Accordingly fresh summons were issued. These were again received by Daryao Singh who reiterated his case that he had no son Chhittar Singh but was directed to appear in court. Daryao Singh appeared in court on 8-3-78 and made an application reiterating his plea that he had no son by the name of Chhittar Singh. The Food Inspector then made an application on 8-3-78 that it seemed the accused was now giving himself out as Ramdhin Singh (IS SAMAYA RAMDHIN SINGH KENAM SE RAHATA HAI). But when the sample was taken he had given his name as Chhittar Singh wrongly. Therefore, he may be summoned in the name of Ramdhin Singh as son of Daryao Singh. Accordingly summons was issued to Ramdhin Singh and he appeared in the court on 29-3-78 and put in an application stating that if he was required in the case, order for bail may be passed. Therefore, he may be summoned in the name of Ramdhin Singh as son of Daryao Singh. Accordingly summons was issued to Ramdhin Singh and he appeared in the court on 29-3-78 and put in an application stating that if he was required in the case, order for bail may be passed. The Food Inspector verified on this application in writing that he was the very person from whom the sample had been taken and thereupon the accused was admitted to bail. He furnished the bail-bonds as Ramdhin Singh. After trial he was convicted. 3. The first point convassed is that the appellant's conviction is vitiated because he is not Chhittar Singh. The Magistrate recorded the conviction and sentenced in the name of Chhittar Singh alias Ramdhin Singh. The Food Inspector was asked about the mistake of name during cross-examination and his statement read as a whole shows that he learnt that a wrong name has been given out after 21-1-78 when the summons was to be served. In my opinion in the sequence of events detailed above, the accused cannot get any benefit from the fact that his name was not Chhittar Singh. If he gave a wrong name to the Food Inspector and was described as such there can be no question of the prosecution being vitiated after his appearance has been secured and the trial has taken place against him. 4. It was next urged that in any case the accused being Ramdhin Singh the sanction to prosecute Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh gets vitiated. Again I am unable to agree. If the true identity of the accused person were known to the Food Inspector before the sanction was sought and accorded there might be something in this argument. But since at the time of sanction the Food Inspector as well as the C.M.O. acting on Food Inspector's report bonafide believed that the person who was alleged to have committed the offence was Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh the sanction must be held to be in order. At the most it was a case of mistaken description for which the accused himself was responsible. There has never been any doubt about the identity which stands established by the Food Inspector's identification of the revisionist in Court. 5. At the most it was a case of mistaken description for which the accused himself was responsible. There has never been any doubt about the identity which stands established by the Food Inspector's identification of the revisionist in Court. 5. Lastly it was contended that the prosecution must fail for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 13(2) of the Act. This provision read with R.I. 9(A) requires that the Food Inspector send a copy of the analyst's report immediately after the institution of the prosecution either by registered post or by hand as may be appropriate. R.I. 9(A) was introduced w.e.f. 4-1-77 in place of the former R.I. 9(j) under which a copy of the public analyst's report was required to be sent within ten days of the receipt thereof by registered post. In the present case the Food Inspector in his examination inchief gave out that a copy of the public analyst's report was sent to the accused from his office by registered post. He was not cross-examined on this point. During his statement the accused was asked if he had received a copy of the public analyst report. He answered in the negative. It was contended that the bare statement that the copy of the report was sent by registered post is not sufficient to prove compliance specially when the accused denies the receipt and when it has transpired that Chhittar Singh was the wrong name, further that in such event even if the report was despatched with the name and address of Chhittar Singh the ordinary presumption should be that it was not served on the accused. I am afraid it is not possible to accept this contention. There is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed so there is no reason to doubt the Food Inspector's statement about despatch of a copy of the public analyst's report. As regards service the absence of any cross-examination which might have brought out whether it was sent acknowledgement due, whether the acknowledgement or the refused covers were received back and so forth renders the accused's bare denial devoid of any weight. If the accused had given his name as Chhittar Singh, it would be for him and his family members to accept the cover addressed as Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh or not to accept it. If the accused had given his name as Chhittar Singh, it would be for him and his family members to accept the cover addressed as Chhittar Singh son of Daryao Singh or not to accept it. In my opinion on the data on record, it is not possible to say that there has been a breach of the provisions of Section 13(2) read with R.I. 9(A). I cannot agree that it is for the prosecution to affirmatively establish by production of documentary evidence that the copy of the public analyst's report was indeed forwarded by registered post immediately after the institution of the prosecution or delivered by hand to the accused. There may be a case where the accused never makes the grievance on this point and then the absence of such an affirmative proof can have no effect oil the prosecution. Therefore, before a grievance about breach of this provision could be made, it must be brought out on record that there has been a breach. In the present case on the above mate-trial coupled with the fact that at no stage was there any attempt to have the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory it is not possible to find that there has been a breach. There is yet another answer to the objection. The record shows that on 29-3-78 during the trial of the case copies were delivered to the accused. The nature of copies has not been specified but these are obviously the prosecution documents required to be furnished to the accused under Section 208 Cr. P.C. These would necessarily include a copy of the analyst's report. Since the new R.I. 9(1) permits delivery of the report by hand, this furnishing of copy would also be compliance with Section 13(2) read with the R.I. 9(A). It may be added that on 29-3-78 which was barely eight months after the sample taken, the milk could still have been analysed and there were no chances of it having been decomposed which process it has been judicially noticed commences only after ten months. 6. The result is that the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused who was admitted to bail by this Court per order dated 21-4-80 shall be got arrested immediately to serve out the sentences according to law.