ORDER C.P. Singh, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner Banshilal seeks to have the judgment of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1979, revised. The learned Additional Sessions udge by his judgment has upheld the petitioners conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment with Rs.1000/- fine and in the alternative further rigorous imprisonment for three m0nths for selling adulterated ground-nm oil prohibited under section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and made punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of that Act• 2. The petitioner has Mahalaxmi oil Mills at Anantpeth, Ujjain on 10-2-1977 in the evening Shankudeo Varma (P. W. 1), the Food Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain in the company of Rajmal (P. W 2), who is peon under him, went to the Mills or the petitioner, bought from him 375 grams of ground nut oil for Rs.3.40, divided the oil into three parts and after completing the formalities, lent one of the parts of the sample to the Public Analyst, who on examining it on 18-2-1977, found that though it had conformed to all the prescribed standards, the contents of free fatty acid as Oleic acid instead of being 3% wail 3.8%, thereby making it adulterated. 3. On these facts the petitioner was successfully prosecuted for selling adulterated ground-nut oil prohibited under section 7 (1) and made punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act before the Municipal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. His appeal to the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain failed. His defence during the trial was that he had not kept the oil from which the sample had been taken for sale because the container containing that oil was open and kept exposed to weather that the petitioner himself had not sold it but it had been bought from a servant who had raised an objection that it was not being bought from the master and that he (the petitioner) signed the documents regarding the buying and sending of sample to the Public Analyst under compulsion. He examined Kasam as a witness for the defence. 4. He examined Kasam as a witness for the defence. 4. The first contention for the petitioner is that rule 17 (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to merely al rules) had not been complied with, inasmuch as the sealed packet bad not been sent to the public Analyst immediately or even on the succeeding working day. There is no force in this contention. Rule 17 (a) of the rules lays down as follows: "17. The containers of the samples shall be dispatched in the following manner, namely: (a) The sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form VII shall be lent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means." The sample had been taken in the evening of 10-2-1977. It could, therefore, not have been sent that day because in all probability tae office of the Public Analyst had closed for the day. The day following (11-2-1977) had been declared to be a public holiday because of the death of the President of India. On 12-2-1977 fell the second Saturday of the month and 13-2-1977 was Sunday a public holiday. Ex. P. 11 the document containing the Public Analyst's report discloses that the sample had been received on 14-2-1977, which was the succeeding working day within the meaning of sub-rule (a) of rule 17 of the rules The sample having been lent not later than the succeeding working day there was compliance with sub-rules (a) and (b) of rule 17 so far as the sending of the sample for analysis within the prescribed period is concerned. 5. The second contention for the petitioner is that there was no compliance with sub-rule (a) of rule 17 of the Act, inasmuch as the sample for analysis and a memorandum in form VII bad not been sent in a sealed packet according to the requirement of law. I find this contention prevails. Rule 17 sub-rules (a) and (b) lay down the manner in which the containers of the samples are required to be dispatched. This rule has to be read along with rule 7 particularly its sub-rule (3). I find this contention prevails. Rule 17 sub-rules (a) and (b) lay down the manner in which the containers of the samples are required to be dispatched. This rule has to be read along with rule 7 particularly its sub-rule (3). The rule 7 laying down the duties of a Public Analyst runs as follows:- ‘7 (1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. (2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be lent to him by the food inspector or by any other person under the Act. (3) The Public Analyst shall within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, deliver to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III: Provided that where any such sample does not conform to the provisions of the Act of these rules, the Public Analyst shall deliver four copies of such report to the said Authority: Provided further that the public analyst shall forward a copy of such report also to the person who purchased an article of food and forwarded the same to him for analysis under section 12 of the Act”. On reference to sub-rule (1) of Rule 7, it becomes clear that the Public Analyst or an Officer authorised by him has to compare the seals not only on the container but also on the outer cover with specimen impression received separately Rule 17 has also to be read along with form No. III which finds reference in sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 Form No. III is as follows:- "Form III [See rule 7 (3)] Report No. I hereby certify that I------Public Analyst for----duly appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 received on the-----day of-----19-----from-----a sample of----for analysis properly sealed and fastened and that I found the seal intact and unbroken The seal fixed on the container [and the outer cover] of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. I further certify that I have/have caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of my analysis to be as follows: --------------------------------and am of the opinion that------Signed this-----days of----19--Address. (Signature) Public Analyst." If the Food Inspector has not, to begin with, dispatched the sample with the container duly sealed and the outer cover (packet) duly sealed, there does not arise any question for the Public Analyst to effectively perform his duty. The sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 therefore pre-supposes the compliance with the sealing of not only the container, but also the 'outer coyer'. The words "and'' the outer cover" in the bracket had been inserted by GSR 1417 dated 20-9-1976 and came into force with effect from 2-10-1976. In other words, they were in force on the date of the alleged offence Reading all these provisions together on their harmonious contruction, it is idle to argue as the learned counsel for the Corporation does, that the terms of sub-rule (a) of Rule 17 do away with the requirement of the outer cover also having a seal. The reference to sealed packet in Rule 17 in my judgment includes the outer covet and means that the packet itself has to be sealed apart from the sealing of the container of the sample. 6. The reference to sealed packet in Rule 17 in my judgment includes the outer covet and means that the packet itself has to be sealed apart from the sealing of the container of the sample. 6. The lame requirements are needed also with regard to two parts of the sample which have to be sent in sealed packets to the Local (Health) Authority as contained in sub-rule (b) of Rule 17. It appears to me that the Public Analyst did not have before him the form No. III as amended by GSR 1417 dated 20-9-1976 which came into force on 2-10-1976 it is why there is no reference in it to any seal with regard to the outer cover. The evidence of Shankardeo Verma (PW 1) also is not that he had complied with the requirements of sub-rules (a) and (b) of Rule 17 with regard to either of the outer covers (sealed packets) His evidence merely is that he after having put 125 grams of bought oil in three clean and dry bottels, closed them, wrapped them, labeled them, tied them with a thread; put a slip which had been received from the Health Officer, then sealed it with Chapdi (sealing wax) putting on his own seal over it. Thereafter he took the signatures of the accused on the three sealed bottles. His evidence is silent about bit putting a similar seal also on the outer cover which could be described as a sealed packet within the meaning of rule 17. There is preponderance of decisions though not under the amended rule 17 as such, certainly under the rule 17 all it had stood before 4-1-1977 that requirements under the rule are mandatory. See State of Maharashtra v. Khacharan Das D Bahalgar (1979 (1) FAC 152) Dalichand and others v. State of Maharashtra (1979 (1) FAC 138), The State of Maharashtra v. Mallu (1979 (1) FAC 221) and Shri S.G. Chandmane v. Tamizuddin (1979 (1) FAC 230). Contra G. Chandramouli v. The State (1978 Cr. L.J. 549) There is no reason to hold that merely because the rule now does not have the words 'outer cover' but refers to sealed packet (which includes outer cover) instead, the requirement of the sealing of the packet has become merely directory. Contra G. Chandramouli v. The State (1978 Cr. L.J. 549) There is no reason to hold that merely because the rule now does not have the words 'outer cover' but refers to sealed packet (which includes outer cover) instead, the requirement of the sealing of the packet has become merely directory. When the law prescribes a duty to be performed by a Public Officer in a particular way he has to perform that duty in the prescribed manner or not at all. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation that by the amended Rule 17 which came into force on 4-1-1977 by virtue of GSR 4 (E) dated 4-1-1977 the requirement about the putting of seal on the outer cover has been dispensed with is not tenable. First the terms of the rules themselves do not expressly do away with the requirement of the seal on the outer cover referred to in Form III-under Rule 7 (3) and secondly there is nothing by even necessary implication in Rule 17 to infer that the requirement of the seal on the outer cover has been done away with. In interpreting different section of a statute (and the same rule applies to interpreting subordinate legislation too), the various provisions of a statute or subordinate legislation have to be construed harmoniously so at to avoid repugnancy among them Then there is presumption against an implied repeal. 8. The third contention for the petitioner is that the part of the sample sent to the Public Analyst was not a representative sample and hence the requirement of section 11 had not been complied with. I find that this contention also prevails The evidence of the Food Inspector Shankardeo Verma (PW 1) contained in paragraph 3 of his deposition is that he had brought 375 grams of all as sample for Rs.340 in a jug. Although his evidence regarding three bottles, in which he had put 125 grams of oil is that each of them was empty, clean and dry, his evidence is silent about the jug containing the oil from which these bottles were filled being empty, dry and clean. Although his evidence regarding three bottles, in which he had put 125 grams of oil is that each of them was empty, clean and dry, his evidence is silent about the jug containing the oil from which these bottles were filled being empty, dry and clean. From his evidence contained in paragraph 16, it appears that he had himself not bought the oil which came to be contained in the jug put had caused his companion Rajmal (PW 2) and Duksingh (PW 4) to bring oil of these two Witnesses, Dulesingh (PW 4) had got the oil, which was brought in a jug, weighed According to Rajmal (PW 2) it was Dulesingh (PW 4), who had alone gone to bring oil. The evidence of Dulesingh, however, is that be brought the all in a container (presumably the jug) From the contents of the jug though two bottles had been filled, one bottle had remained unfilled with the result that he had to being another jug which held fallen down from his hand. Thereafter he had brought oil and with the help of It the third bottle bad been filled. If what Dulesingh (PW. 4) deposes be true is could be that it was the third of the bottles which presumably had been sent to the Public Analyst revealing the presence of comparatively more free fatly acid as Oleic acid, which presumably would not have been found in the other two samples. The difficulty, however, is that Dulesingn (PW 4) had presumably under lection 154 Indian Evidence Act been put questions, which otherwise could be put only in his cross-examination. 9. A witness is not necessarily hostile became in the process of unfolding the truth he happens to depose something going against the party calling him ail a witness. A witness's primary allegiance is to the truth and not to the party calling him Before a Court allows a party calling a witness to put to him questions which might otherwise be put only in cross examination by the adverse party, it (the Court) should mark the conduct, including attitude, demeanor, unwillingness to give ready answers or to disclose the truth or exhibit hostile or unfriendly feelings and the like, of the witness. An unhealthy practice, almost irretrievable by now, has grown up to label the evidence of a witness al "cross-examination" after the Court has in its discretion, permitted the party calling a witness to put to him question; which might be put in cross-examination. Strictly speaking section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act does not lay down that a party calling a witness can also cross-examine him it merely says that the Court may, to its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party. "Cross examination" is the right of the adverse party. The examination of a witness by the party who calls him in called his examination in chief (and it remains his examination in-chief even inspite of his having been asked questions by the party calling him, which otherwise could be asked only in cross examination by the adverse party Sec. 137, former clause). It is only the examination by the adverse party which is called his cross-examination (See 137, latter clause). 10. Then according to the terms of section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act a witness is first examined in-chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined. It would therefore be readily seen that there is no scope for labeling a part of examination-in-chief of a witness as cross-examination, which the learned Magistrate trying the case has done. 11. If Dulesingh's evidence is accepted, the result is as already indicated. If on the other hand, it is discarded, there is no evidence left regarding the condition of the jug being empty, clean and dry; for or it was Dulesingh alone who had brought the oil in the jug. In these circumstances, it could not be held that the sample lent to the Public Analyst was necessarily a representative sample. 12. The connected contention for the petitioner which again prevails is that in the event of the jug being contaminated even with some slight moisture by oxidation there could have been an increase in free fatty acid as Oleic acid. 12. The connected contention for the petitioner which again prevails is that in the event of the jug being contaminated even with some slight moisture by oxidation there could have been an increase in free fatty acid as Oleic acid. (See: In re, p. Mohammud Shoriff Saheb AIR 1962 Madras 342 and Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow V. Mushir Ahmad-1978 (1) F.A.C. 165) for showing that gradual decomposition of the glycerol’s into their component glycerol and free fatty acids, takes place when a fat is exposed to the action of the light and air, with the result that the acid value steadily rises, [See also Industrial and Manufacturing Chemistry by Martin and Cooke, 7th Edn. at page 62 as noted by Veeraswami, J. in the Madras case of Mohamhuad Cheriff Saheb (supra)]. 13. As a result of foregoing conclusions particularly taking into account that only a small departure from normal with regard to free fatty acid as Oleic acid which could be as explained by the petitioner due to the container having oil being exposed to weather, and the Food Inspector having failed to comply with the mandatory requirement contained in rule 17 in having not proved to have put seal also on the outer cover (the sealed packet), the petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for selling adulterated oil prohibited under section 7 (1) of the Act and the sentence passed under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act are set aside and be is acquitted.