Judgment M.S.PATIL, J.: The Food Inspector of the City of Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, has filed this appeal on special leave under Section 378(1) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.2.1983 passed by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, in C.C. No. 22 of 1982, on his file, acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge of the offence of food adulteration punishable under Sections 7 read with 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, levelled against him. 2. The accused A.G.Suvarna is alleged to be a proprietor of the shop named and styled as M/s. Shakthi Cream Parlour, manufacturing and selling ice cream for human consumption, situated at Jeppu Market, in Mangalore City. On 31.8.1981, at about 12 noon, according to the prosecution, the Food Inspector (P.W.1) visited the said shop of the accused and purchased nine cups (900 Grams) of mango ice cream for analysis and having paid its cost of Rs.10.80 ps. to the accused, obtained a receipt as per Ex.P-2 and in the presence of the accused and panch witness Narayana P.W. 2 sampled the ice cream so purchased as per the procedure prescribed and after adding 24 drops of formalin for each of the three sample packets as preservative, he packed and sealed the same under mahazer Ex.P-4 and issued notice in Form VI as per Ex.P-3 to the accused as provided under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. He, thereafter, sent one of the three sample packets along with memorandum in Form VIII containing specimen seals as per Ex.P-5 to the public analyst, Bangalore, through railway parcel and he also sent the specimen seal separately along with a copy of the memorandum of the seal by remaining two sample packets along with a copy of the memorandum of specimen seals to the Local Health Authority. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst as per Ex.P-7 stating that the sample was adulterated, he placed all the relevant papers before the District Health Officer and having obtained sanction for prosecution as per Ex.P-9, on 8.2.1982, filed a complaint against the accused. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst as per Ex.P-7 stating that the sample was adulterated, he placed all the relevant papers before the District Health Officer and having obtained sanction for prosecution as per Ex.P-9, on 8.2.1982, filed a complaint against the accused. On the same day, the Local Health Officer sent a copy of the report Ex.P-7 of the Public Analyst with a covering letter Ex.P-11 to the accused intimating him the result of the Public Analyst and to make an application within ten days before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to get analysed the sample packed, kept in his custody, by the Director General, Food Laboratory at Pune, if he so desired. Although the letter Ex.P-11 was delivered on him on 19.2.1982 (vide Ex.P-12 postal acknowledgement), he, it appears, did not avail of that option given to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the evidence of the complainant (Food Inspector) and the pancha as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively and on the close of the prosecution evidence also examined and recorded the statement of the accused as provided under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. Although the accused admitted his signature on the papers affixed on the packets of sample and of his having also received the copy of the report of the Public Analyst with covering letter Ex.P-11 and the Postal acknowledgement Ex.P-12, but denied either he was proprietor of the shop or he was selling ice cream or he was present in the shop on 31.8.1981. He also denied P.W.1 having purchased ice cream from him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 the Food Inspector partly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, held that the accused was the proprietor of the shop in question and P.W.1 did visit the shop on 31.8.1981 and purchased the ice cream for analysis. He also denied P.W.1 having purchased ice cream from him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 the Food Inspector partly corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2, held that the accused was the proprietor of the shop in question and P.W.1 did visit the shop on 31.8.1981 and purchased the ice cream for analysis. He also noticed that the Public Analyst had in his report stated that the sample contained 32.84% solid, 3.8% milk fat and 4.61% proteins and the total solids and milk fat being less than the prescribed standard, the sample was adulterated, but, he held that not only the evidence of P.W.1 was silent as regards the strength of formalin that was added to the sample but there was no proof regarding the compliance of Rule 7 by comparing the seals on the container and the outer-cover with a specimen impression received separately and as such it cannot be said the sample of the ice cream drawn from the shop of the accused was adulterated. In other words, he held, there was no satisfactory proof that what was sent to the public Analyst and examined by him was the ice cream drawn from the shop of the accused and relying upon the decision of this Court in Food Inspector, Mangalore Municipality v. K.S.Raphel Food Inspector, Mangalore Municipality v. K.S.Raphel (1931) F.A.J. 657: I.L.R. (1981) 1 Karn. 393: (1981) Crl.L.J. 1149, held that the non-compliance of Rule 7 vitiated the prosecution of the accused for the offence alleged against him and, accordingly, he having acquitted the accused, the Corporation of the City of Mangalore, through its Food Inspector, has filed this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal as made by him. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. B.V.Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had materially erred in acquitting the accused either because of the strength of the formalin added had not been stated or proof regarding the comparison of the sales on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately had not been adduced, particularly when the report (Ex.P-7) of the Public Analyst stated that the sample of the food was received properly sealed and fastened and the seal affixed on the container and outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression, of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector, as the report of the Public Analyst was admissible in evidence as provided under Sub- section (5) of Section 13 of the Act as substantive evidence without evidence aliunde. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision reported in Food Inspector v. Gangadharan Food Inspector v. Gangadharan (1983) Crl.L.J. 1732: (1933) 2 Kar.L.J. 142. He also further maintained that even if what is stated in the report of the Public Analyst regarding the comparison is not admissible as substantive, evidence, the official acts regarding such comparison, as provided under Rule 7 , may be presumed to have been regularly performed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not right in acquitting the accused. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. P.Viswanath Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, on the other hand, argued, not only the prosecution had failed to establish the accused was the proprietor of the shop in question, but it also failed to establish that P.W.1 the Food Inspector had purchased any sample of ice-cream from the accused, because the panch witness P.W.2 Narayana has not supported the prosecution that the ice-cream having beer seized in his presence and when the law required that the Food Inspector taking any action under Clause (a) of sub- section (1), sub- section (2), sub- section (4) or sub- section (6) of Section 11 of the Act, shall call one or more persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take his or their signatures, and the prosecution also comes forward that the sample ice cream had been purchased in the presence of pancha and the person does not support such seizure having been made in his presence, the evidence of the Food Inspector alone is not sufficient to hold that any food article was so seized. He also vehemently argued that the provisions of sub- section (5) of Section 13 only dispense the proof of facts stated in the report of the Analyst regarding the result of the analysis and not other facts in as much as the Food Analyst is required to give his report regarding the result of the analysis and not regarding the comparison of the seals on the container and the outer cover with a specimen impression received separately as required under Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Therefore, the fact of so having compared as provided under Rule 7 has to be proved like any other facts by adducing evidence. In support of his contention, he strongly placed reliance on the decision reported in the case of State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque (1983) 2 Kar.L.J. 481 : (1984) F.A.J. 23. Therefore, the fact of so having compared as provided under Rule 7 has to be proved like any other facts by adducing evidence. In support of his contention, he strongly placed reliance on the decision reported in the case of State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque (1983) 2 Kar.L.J. 481 : (1984) F.A.J. 23. He also contended that the provisions in Rule 7 being mandatory, the comparison to be made has strictly to be proved by adducing evidence and it is not a matter to be presumed and, therefore, no proof having been adduced regarding the comparison as provided under Rule 7, the learned C.J.M. was justified in making the order of acquittal and no interference by this Court is at all called. 5. Although there is no doubt the provisions contained in sub- section (7) of Section 10 of the Act are enacted as safeguard against any unfair means resorted to by the Food Inspector, but the fact that the panch witness has not supported the prosecution version of the case of the Food Inspector, P.W.1, obtaining the samples and of his having packed and sealed the samples of food so obtained in his presence, is not by itself sufficient to conclude that the prosecution version of the case as put forward by P.W.1 of his having visited the shop of the accused and purchased the ice cream forthe purpose of analysis, as alleged in the complaint and sworn to by him from the witness box, is altogether false. In the case of Babu Lal Hargovindas v. The State of Gujarat Babu Lal Hargovindas v. The State of Gujarat (1971) Crl.L.J. 1075: (1971) S.C.D. 509: A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1277 dealing with the similar contentions advanced, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows: “…..Even otherwise in our view no question of the trial being vitiated for non-compliance of these provisions can arise. It is not a rule of law that the evidence of the Food Inspector cannot be accepted without corroboration. He is not an accomplice nor is it similar to the one as in the case of Wills where the law makes it imperative to examine an attesting witness under section 68 of the Evidence Act to prove the execution of the Will. He is not an accomplice nor is it similar to the one as in the case of Wills where the law makes it imperative to examine an attesting witness under section 68 of the Evidence Act to prove the execution of the Will. The evidence of the Food Inspector alone if believed can be relied on for proving that the samples were taken in required by law. At the most Courts of fact may find it difficult in any particular case to rely on the testimony of the Food Inspector alone though we do not say that this result generally follows. The circumstances of each case will determine the extent of the weight to be given to the evidence of the Food Inspector and what in the opinion of the Court is the value of his testimony. The provisions of Section 10(7) are akin to those under Section 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code when the premises of a citizen are searched by the Police. These provisions are enacted to safeguard against any possible allegations of excesses or resort to unfair means either by the Police Officers or by the Food Inspectors under the Act. This being the object it is in the interest of the prosecution authorities concerned to comply with the provisions of the Act, the non-compliance of which may in some cases result in their testimony being rejected. While this is so we are not to be understood as in any way minimising the need to comply with the aforesaid salutary provisions.” The same question of lav again came up for consideration before their Lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Administration) Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Administration) (1977) 1 S.C.C. 173 : (1977) S.C.C. (Crl.) 78: (1977) Crl.L.J. 12: (1977) 1 S.C.R. 592 : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 56 and their Lordships observed as follows: “….It is unfortunately not an infrequent occurrence to find that pancha witness turn hostile and go back upon what is stated in the punchanama in utter disregard of truth. This betrays Jack of character and absence of civic sense which not only result in the guilty escaping the punishment but lead to general deterioration in standards of honesty and Integrity. This betrays Jack of character and absence of civic sense which not only result in the guilty escaping the punishment but lead to general deterioration in standards of honesty and Integrity. This is a highly reprehensible phenomenon which has to be curbed in the larger interest of the administration of justice……..There is no rule of law that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of a Food Inspector. It is only out of a sense of caution that the Courts insist that the testimony of a Food Inspector should be corroborated by some independent witness. This is a necessary caution which has to be borne in mind because the Food Inspector may in a sense be regarded as an interested witness, but this caution is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law; if it were otherwise, it would be possible for any guilty person to escape punishment by resorting to the device of bribing panch witnesses..” 6. In the case on hand, the evidence given by P.W.1 showed that he had taken the sample in compliance with the provisions of law. Even though the panch witness P.W. 2 did not support the prosecution case whole heartedly, as to the taking of the sample, as deposed to by the Food Inspector (P.W. 1), the learned Magistrate has found that not only the accused was the proprietor of the shop in question, but there are also no reason for disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 1 as to the taking of the sample from the shop of the accused on the date in question. The evidence in the case and the admissions given by P.W. 2 himself showed that he had come to the Court with the accused and on his motor-cycle, from which it can reasonably be inferred that he had been won over by the accused. Nevertheless, P.W. 2 has stated that on the date in question when he went to the shop of the accused he also found P.W. 1 present in the shop and he also signed on Ex.P-4 as asked by the accused and when confronted with Ex.P-4 he also admitted his signature thereon. The evidence given by P.W. 1 substantially finds corroboration from the recitals in panchanama Ex.P-4. The evidence given by P.W. 1 substantially finds corroboration from the recitals in panchanama Ex.P-4. The learned Magistrate, it appears, was right in accepting and placing reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 and in reaching the conclusion that on the day in question P.W. 1 visited the shop of the accused and took samples as deposed to by him and as narrated in Ex.P-4. It is essentially a finding of fact and that finding of fact does not call for any interference and we accept it and hold that the Food Inspector P.W. 1, as found by the learned Magistrate, did visit the shop of the respondent-accused and take sample of article of food, that is the ice cream. 7. Now, coming to the other conclusions, what requires to be considered is: whether and how far the other evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is reliable and to what extent the report of the Public Analyst is relevant and admissible in evidence. It is important to bear in mind that when a Food Inspector takes a sample for analysis, he has to follow certain procedure. He has to give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he takes the sample as provided under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. It is important to bear in mind that when a Food Inspector takes a sample for analysis, he has to follow certain procedure. He has to give notice in writing then and there of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he takes the sample as provided under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. He has to add preservative, as may be prescribed, to the sample for the purpose of maintaining it in a condition suitable for analysis as provided under Rule 19 of the rules and has to divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten each such packet and he has also to take signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken and in case such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression then to call upon one or more witnesses and to take his or their signature or thumb impression, as the case may be, in lieu of signature of thumb impression of the person from whom he takes the sample, for having so divided the samples and packed and sealed in the manner prescribed under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act and Rule 16 of the Rules and then he has to send one of such sealed and fastened packets for analysis to the Public Analyst by immediately succeeding working day as provided in sub- section (3) of Section 11 of the Act and in the manner as provided under Rule 17 with a memorandum in Form VII addressed to the Public Analyst. It is also obligatory on the Food Inspector as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules to send a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packets to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or deliver to him or to any person authorised by him. It is also obligatory on the Food Inspector as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules to send a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packets to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or deliver to him or to any person authorised by him. The only witness who can speak to all these having been done would be the Food Inspector, except in cases where the person from the sample is taken refused to sign or put his thumb impression and one or more other witnesses is called to sign or put his thumb impression in lieu of the person from whom the sample is taken, in which case the person or persons so called upon to sign or put his thumb impression, unless he is not the same person in whose presence the sample was taken by the Food Inspector as provided under Section 10(7) of the Act, will have to be called to prove the dividing, packing and sealing of the sample of the article of food. In the case on hand, P.W. 2 being the same witness present while taking the sample and sealing the packets, it may also be held that the Food Inspector also did divide, pack and seal the packets of the sample as provided under Section 11 of the Act and Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules. There is no dispute and in fact Mr. P.V.Viswanatha Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, did not seek to dispute that the Food Inspector P.W. 1 had also sent samples of the seal with a copy of the Memorandum, separately by registered post as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules. The only question of importance that now requires to be considered is: in the absence of proof alinude regarding the comparison, how far the report Ex.P-7 issued by the Public Analyst is conclusive and sufficient to establish the charge of the offence of adulteration as levelled against the respondent-accused. 8. Sub- sections (1) and (5) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which are relevant for our purpose read as follows: “13(1). The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.….. The Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis.….. (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 be 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: Provided that any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory (not being a certificate with respect to the analysis of the part of the sample of any article of food referred to in the proviso to sub- section (1A) of Section 16) shall be final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein”. From a reading of sub- sections (1) and (5) of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that the Public Analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local Health Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis; and any document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst, unless it has been superseded under sub- section (3) of Section 13 may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under the Act or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code. While under sub- section (1) of Section 13,the Public analyst is required to deliver “a report of the result of the analysis of the article of food submitted to him for analysis”, under sub- section (5), any such document purporting to be a report signed by a public analyst may be used “as evidence of the facts stated therein”. The expressions “of the facts stated therein” have to be understood as having reference only to the article of food and result of the analysis and not to any other facts. The provisions contained in sub- section (5) thus only dispenses the proof alinude of the result of the analysis and of the facts stated therein as regards result of the analysis of the article of food submitted to him. 9. The provisions contained in sub- section (5) thus only dispenses the proof alinude of the result of the analysis and of the facts stated therein as regards result of the analysis of the article of food submitted to him. 9. Rule 7 of the Rules deals with the duties of the public analyst appointed by the Central Government or the State Government under Section 8 of the Act and it reads as follows: “7. Duties of Public analyst: (1) on receipt of 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 sent to him by 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 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 or 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 forward the same to him for analysis under Section 12 of the Act”. Form III under Rule 7(3) reads as follows: FORM III See Rule 7(3) Report by the Public Analyst Report No….. I hereby certify that I….Public Analyst for….. duly appointed under 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 that seal intact and unbroken. The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the 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/had caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows: and am of the opinion that……signed this…. I further certify that I have/had caused to be analysed the aforementioned sample, and declare the result of the analysis to be as follows: and am of the opinion that……signed this…. day of…… 19… (Signature) Public Analyst Address…… 10. The provision in the Rule are mandatory in nature and it is obligatory on the part of the Public Analyst or an Officer authorised by him to not only compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately (under Rule 18) and to note the conditions of the seal thereon, but also cause the sample of the articles of food analysed and to deliver the report of the result of such analysis to the Local Health Authority within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of the sample. Although as provided under sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Act r/w section 23 of the Act it is left to the Central Government to make Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act generally and in particular for all or any of the matters provided in Section 23(1A) of the Act, including the matter in which the container of sample of food purchased for analysis shall be sealed and fastened up and the methods of analysis, there is no provision either in the Act, or the Rules where under it is either permissible to the Public Analyst to make a report of his having compared the seals on the container and outer cover with the specimen impression received separately as required under Rule 7 of the Rules or whereby it is permissible to use as evidence the facts stated in the report in this behalf. 11. In the case of Mary Lazrado v. The State of Mysore Mary Lazrado v. The State of Mysore (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 18: (1966) Crl.L.J. 1036: A.I.R. 1966 Mys. 244,there was no evidence adduced to show that the Food Inspector had sent separately by registered post or delivered to the public analyst or to a person authorised by him the specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the bottles as required under Rule 18 of the Rules. (Crl.) 18: (1966) Crl.L.J. 1036: A.I.R. 1966 Mys. 244,there was no evidence adduced to show that the Food Inspector had sent separately by registered post or delivered to the public analyst or to a person authorised by him the specimen impression of the seal used for sealing the bottles as required under Rule 18 of the Rules. Although the report of the public analyst contained a statement in printed form, as in the case on hand, that the sample sent for analysis had been properly sealed and fastened and that he found the seal intact and unbroken, after referring to Rules 7 and 18 of the Rules, Tukol, J., sitting as single Judge, pointed out that not only Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are mandatory but the non-compliance with them affects the evidentiary value of the report of the public analyst and the mere fact that the report of the public analyst contained a statement that the sample sent for analysis had been properly sealed and fastened and he found the seals intact and unbroken was not sufficient. In Para. 8 of the judgment, pointing out the importance of checking and verification, His Lordships observed as follows: “This method of check and verification provided for by the Rules is the only guarantee against tampering and is a definite source of confidence both to the accused and to the Court that the sample analysed was the very sample which had been submitted by the Food Inspector. In fact, it is the report or the Certificate issued after such analysis that virtually concludes the accused against himself. The procedure prescribed by the Rules serves a great public purpose by guaranteeing impartial and honest handling of the sample despatched to, and received for analysis by the Public Analyst.” Proceeding further, it is observed: “…..The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if the report or the certificate is to be used as evidence without calling the Public Analyst or the Director of the Central Food Laboratory far evidence as the law now permits, then it is imperative that all the rules prescribing the procedure commencing from the stage of purchasing the sample of food leading upto its analysis are strictly observed. To argue that the accused has got the liberty of getting his sample analysed to counteract the effect of the report of the Public Analyst is to require the accused in every case to prove his innocence. …..Since the report of the Public Analyst has neither finality nor conclusiveness as evidence of the facts stated therein, it becomes all the more obligatory on the Court to require strict and imperative compliance with the Rules before it decides to use the report of the Public Analyst as proof of the accused's guilt.” Of course, in the case of Laxman Sitaram v. The State of Mysore Laxman Sitaram v. The State of Mysore (1967) Crl.L.J. 382: A.I.R. 1967 Mys. 33, another single, Judge of this Court took a view that the contents of the printed form prescribed under Rule 7(3) of the rules satisfy the requirement of both sub- rules (1) and (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules. But, however, explaining and disserting from this view and quoting with approval the observations made by Tukol, J., in the case of (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 18, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Belgaum Borough Municipality v. Shridhar Shankar Kundri Belgaum Borough Municipality v. Shridhar Shankar Kundri (1967) 2 Mys. L.J. 299: (1967) MLJ. (Crl.) 803: A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 196 observed as follows: “We entirely agree with the observations of his lordship and hold that Rules 7 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory in nature and any non-compliance of the rules affects the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst”. 12. In the case of Food Inspector, Mangalore Municipality v. K.S.Raphael Food Inspector, Mangalore Municipality v. K.S.Raphael (1981) F.A.J. 657: (1981) Crl.L.J. 1149, no proof was adduced to show that a copy of the memorandum of specimen of seals was either sent to the Public Analyst by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him and no proof was also adduced to show that the seals were compared, but the report of the Public Analyst furnished in Form III contained a statement to the effect that the sample sent for analysis was properly sealed and packed and the seals were intact and unbroken and it was contended that there was no scope for tampering. Repelling that contention, it is held that compliance of Rules 7 and 18 was not merely an idle formality, but it was intended to provide a safeguard against inter-meddling and tampering with the sample sent for analysis and both Section 13(1) of the Act and sub- rule (3) of Rule 7 provided for furnishing a report regarding the analysis and as such the report was admissible only to prove the result of the analysis and not the comparison of the seals on the container and outer cover with the specimen received separately and their condition. Therefore, like any other fact, it was obligatory on the prosecution to prove that the seals on the container and the outer cover were compared with the specimen impression separately received and the conditions of the seals thereon was noted. No doubt, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Food Inspector v. Gangadharan Food Inspector v. Gangadharan (1983) Crl.L.J. 1732: (1983) 2 Kar.L.J. 142 has laid down that the report of the Public Analyst is substantive evidence in the case and the recital in the certificate regarding the comparison of the specimen seal with the seals affixed on the bottles is admissible in proof of that fact; but, subsequently, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque (1984) F.A.J. 23: (1983) 2 Kar.L.J. 481 a Division Bench of this Court approving the view taken by this Court in the case of (1981) Crl.L.J. 1149, laid down that what is stated in the Form about the comparison cannot be read as substantive evidence and it is obligatory, like any other fact, for the prosecution to prove that the seals on the container and the outer cover were compared with the specimen received separately and the condition of the seals thereon. In our considered view, that appears to be the correct interpretation of the provisions of Rule 7 and sub- section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. 13. In our considered view, that appears to be the correct interpretation of the provisions of Rule 7 and sub- section (5) of Section 13 of the Act. 13. Both under sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Act and Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the Public Analyst is required to give and deliver a report of the result of the analysis, not any report regarding his having compared the seals, although it is the duty of the Public Analyst under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, either by himself or by an officer authorised by him, to compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression of the seal received separately and note the condition of the seals thereon. Whether the samples of food articles submitted were properly sealed and fastened or the seals thereon were intact or broken: whether the seals affixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample on comparison tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the food Inspector, and if the sample was in a condition fit for analysis or not, are all facts as to the state or condition of the sample and the seals and how they tallied in relation to other seals or comparison are all matters capable of being perceived by sense of personal observation and like all other facts have to be proved by oral evidence of the Public Analyst or the Officer authorised by him, who compares the seals as provided under Rule 7(1) of the Rules. The public analyst or any other officer authorised by him, who so perceives or compares by his observations, is bound to make a record of his observation; because, what Rule 7(1) says is that he shall note the condition of the seals thereon. The expression ‘shall note’ means, observe and make a record. Even where a public analyst or an officer authorised by him observes and makes a record of his observation will not by itself be admissible in evidence, unless the public analyst or the officer authorised by him, who makes the record, is called and examined as a witness. The expression ‘shall note’ means, observe and make a record. Even where a public analyst or an officer authorised by him observes and makes a record of his observation will not by itself be admissible in evidence, unless the public analyst or the officer authorised by him, who makes the record, is called and examined as a witness. It therefore follows, apart from the fact that the recitals in the report of the public analyst in so far as they relate to the condition of the seals and comparison of the seals in the prescribed form are in excess of the rule making power, and the same being in print form cannot be regarded as record of the notes of observation made by the public analyst or the officer authorised by him in this behalf. The recitals in this behalf in Ex.P-7 are, therefore, neither by themselves substantive evidence, much less the evidence of the facts stated therein. 14. Mr. B.V.Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that even if what is stated in the report of the Public Analyst regarding the condition of the seal and the comparison is not admissible in evidence, as substantive evidence, it being the duty of the Public Analyst or the person authorised by him to make such comparison of the seals and note the condition of the seals and the Public analyst having issued the report regarding the result of the analysis, in discharge of his official duties, it may be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that such official acts in compliance with the conditions of the Rules have been regularly performed, if there was evidence to show that the specimen seal used for sealing the packets had been sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post as provided under Rule 18 of the Rules and in support of his contention he also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhotekhan Nannekhan State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chhotekhan Nannekhan A.I.R. 1970 M.P. 29 as also the decisions in the cases of Food Inspector,Cannore Municipality v. P.Kannan Food Inspector,Cannore Municipality v. P.Kannan A.I.R. 1966 Ker. 70, K.Rajaram v. Koranne K.Rajaram v. Koranne A.I.R. 1968 Bom. 247 and Jammu Municipality v. Gaquir Hussain Jammu Municipality v. Gaquir Hussain A.I.R. 1968 J. & K. 17. 15. 70, K.Rajaram v. Koranne K.Rajaram v. Koranne A.I.R. 1968 Bom. 247 and Jammu Municipality v. Gaquir Hussain Jammu Municipality v. Gaquir Hussain A.I.R. 1968 J. & K. 17. 15. Of course, the Kerala High Court appears to have taken a view that in a case where the Food Inspector gives evidence that the articles was duly sealed and forwarded to the Public Analyst and also there is a report of the Analyst that the sample of food properly sealed and fastened was received by him and the seals were found intact and unbroken, there was no need to let in any link evidence to show the sample that was sent to the Public Analyst was the same that was taken by the Food Inspector and it may be presumed under Section 114(e), Evidence Act that the sample seal was duly forwarded by the Food Inspector and that the Public Analyst duly compared the seal as per Rules and the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court also following the decisions of Allahabad High Court in the case of Municiapl Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal Municiapl Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal A.I.R. 1964 All. 199 and the Kerala High Court in the case of FoodInspector, Cannanore Municipality v. P.Kannan FoodInspector, Cannanore Municipality v. P.Kannan A.I.R. 1966 Ker. 70 and after referring to the provisions in Section 11 of the Act has observed as follows: “….The procedure in this section is complete in itself. Its object is to safeguard the interests of the person from whose custody some food articles are suspected to be adulterated are seized. After the Public Analyst gives his opinion against the person from whose possession the sample has been seized, the accused retains one portion of the sample and if he feels that the sample seized is not the same as the one examined by the Public Analyst or feels that the seals were tampered with, he can come forward with his own sample and get it verified by the Public Analyst. If he does not do so, it can safely be inferred that he has had no grievance against the report of the Public Analyst.” Dealing with the comparison of the seals it has been further observed: “….It is an official act performed by the Public Analyst and under illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be deemed to be properly performed.” A single Judge of the Bombay High Court also relying upon the decision in the case of State v. Umacharan State v. Umacharan A.I.R. 1966 Ori. 81 has observed as follows: “….It would not be proper to place undue emphasis on one technical safeguard provided in the Rules, viz., the comparison of the seal of the container with the specimen of the seal. If the specimen seal was sent separately as required by Rule 18, there is no reason why the Public Analyst should fail to discharge the duty enjoined on him. At any rate at. least on that narrow point, it would be legitimate to draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.” In these decisions, no such general proposition of law appears to have been laid down. But, on the facts of those cases, it is held that the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised. 16. In the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court A.I.R. 1970 M.P. 29, it has been laid down as follows: “The principle embodied in illustration (e) under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that when any judical or official act is shown to have been done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed that the formal requisites for its validity have been complied with. As we have indicated elsewhere, of the Statute itself provided that certain regulations and formalities must be complied with before the report of the Public Analyst could be admitted in evidence, the position would have been different, for in that case, it would be necessary to specifically establish that those regulations and formalities were duly observed. In the absence of such a provision, what purports to be report signed by a Public Analyst is, without any other proof, admissible in evidence and the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to the regular performance of official acts also applies to it. The accused is not thereby prejudiced. In the absence of such a provision, what purports to be report signed by a Public Analyst is, without any other proof, admissible in evidence and the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to the regular performance of official acts also applies to it. The accused is not thereby prejudiced. He may rebut the presumption by cross-examining prosecution witnesses or leading other evidence. He has also been given under sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Act the right to show, if possible, the report is incorrect.” Proceeding further, it is also observed: “…In our opinion, the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence and Illustration (e) thereunder in relation to regular performance of official acts applies to the report of a Public Analyst. It is, however, a rebuttable presumption. That being so, such a report is not in admissible only because it has not been specifically established by evidence aliunde that the requirements of Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 19.55, were duly complied with.” The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that this aspect of question (presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act) was not considered in the case of MaryLazrado v. The State of Mysore MaryLazrado v. The State of Mysore (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 18: A.I.R. 1966 Mys. 244, but in fact such a presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act was argued and considered and it has been held that the presumption in regard to the regularity of the procedure followed by the Public Analyst may be raised when there is proof that the Food Inspector had discharged his functions according to the Rules. To raise a presumption, both in favour of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst, is to render the rules superfluous and meaningless. We are in complete agreement with these observations. 17. To raise a presumption, both in favour of the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst, is to render the rules superfluous and meaningless. We are in complete agreement with these observations. 17. Of course, as provided under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, the Court may presume existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened in relation to facts of a particular case and as provided under illustration (e) of the Section, the Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed if the official act is proved to have been done. There is, however, no presumption that the official act was done. Under Illustration (e) of Section 114, if the official act is proved to have been done, then the Court may presume the official act as having teen regularly performed because, the presumption to be raised is as to the regularity of the official acts done and not the acts themselves being done. The presumption to be raised being discretionary, whether such presumption can be raised or not in any given case, depends upon the facts of the particular case. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that if once the Public Analyst issues a report regarding the result of the analysis, it may also be presumed that the Public Analyst or the person authorised by him has discharged his duties in compliance with Rule 7(1) of the Rules. The question is not as to the admissibility of the report of the Public Analyst in evidence. It is admissible in evidence as provided under sub- section (5) of Section 13 of the Act and, as stated earlier, only in proof of the result of analysis of the article of food submitted for analysis. The question is: whether the report of the Public Analyst, in the absence of proof of compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules, can safely be made a basis for convicting the accused. The provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules being mandatory in nature, as laid down by this Court in the case of (1967) MLJ.(Crl.) 803, any non-compliance of the Rules affect the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst. 18. The provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Rules being mandatory in nature, as laid down by this Court in the case of (1967) MLJ.(Crl.) 803, any non-compliance of the Rules affect the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst. 18. Here in the case on hand, in the absence of proof regarding the compliance of the provisions of Rule 7, the learned Magistrate has considered it not safe and proper to find the accused guilty of the charge merely on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst. He appears to have committed no error in reaching that conclusion and acquitting the accused. We are also not inclined to raise any presumption of the compliance of Rule 7(1) of the Rules, because, although the Food Inspector has stated that he sent a copy of memorandum with sample seal separately by registered post and he has also produced the acknowledgment to that effect, but whether Exhibit P.5 produced in the case is the copy of the Memorandum sent to the Public Analyst is not free from doubt since there is neither any endorsement on it as having been received in the Office of the Public Analyst nor there is any indication that the same had been received, so as to draw a presumption that the Public Analyst or any person authorised by him had compared the sample seal as required under the Rule. 19. In the result and for the reasons stated above, we confirm the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.