This criminal revision was suo motu initiated by this Court against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.88 passed by Shri M. M. Sarkar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, in Case No. 1213 C/87. Jagat Singh, the respondent herein, was prosecuted under section 16 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter `the Act', for alleged sale of adulterated `Dohi' in his restaurant at Ganeshguri in Guwahati. In that case, the prosecution has examined only one PW, namely the Food Inspector, to prove the charge against him. Section 10 (7) of the Act requires a Food Inspector to call one or more persons to witness his taking of the sample for analysis and this requirement implies that the prosecution has to examine such persons at the trial to prove that the sample was actually taken from the accused. The witness (Food Inspector) stated in his deposition that though he called persons to witness his collection of the sample, "none agreed to come to him. The prosecution did not produce the inspection note. The witness also stated that after institution of the case, the Local Health Authority served a copy of the report of the Public Analyst by sending it in a registered post. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who tried the case, held that in such a case, it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of the Food Inspector that he called the persons to witness at the time of taking of sample but none agreed to come, unless that fact is corroborated by the notings in the inspection note. He, therefore, held that the prosecution failed to prove the collection of sample from the respondent beyond reason­able doubt. Secondly, he found that the prosecution has failed to prove that a copy of the report of Public Analyst which they have sent by registered post was served on the respondent. He, therefore, held that the prosecution has alo failed to comply with the requirement of section 13 (2). On these two grounds, he acquitted the respondent. Mr. B. B. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the fact that the Food Inspector called persons to be witnesses of his collection of the sample but none agreed to come, is a sufficient compliance of section 10 (7) of the Act. In support of this contention, he relied on Ramlabhaya vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 789 . B. B. Narzary, learned Public Prosecutor contends that the fact that the Food Inspector called persons to be witnesses of his collection of the sample but none agreed to come, is a sufficient compliance of section 10 (7) of the Act. In support of this contention, he relied on Ramlabhaya vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 789 . There, it was held that as the Food Inspector could not compel the presence of the witnesses the prosecution was relieved of its obligation under section 10 (7) and therefore, non-compliance did not vitiate the trial and that as the Food Inspector was not in the position of an accomplice, his evidence alone, if believed, can sustain the conviction. It was further held that these, however, are not to be understood as minimising the need to comply with the salutory provision of section 10 (7) which was enacted as safeguard against possible allegation of excesses or unfair practices by the Food Inspector. The other case relied on by Mr. Narzary is Public Prosecutor vs. Thatha Rao, 1968 Cri LJ 20 (AP) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 10 (7) are not mandatory but that does not mean that the Food Inspectors are given free hand to by pass them. In the instant case, the trial Court had doubts, as the respondent has denied the taking of the sample from him. Mr. J. M. Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the respondent has exhaustively met the contentions of Mr. Narzary. He maintains that section 10 (7), though not mandatory, has to be complied with to the satisfaction of the Court and stated that Rule 9 (e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, herein­after the `Rule' the Food Inspector has the duty to maintain a record of all inspections made and action taken by him in taking of sample and seizure of stocks and to submit the copy of such records to the Health Officer or the Food Health Authority as contemplated in this behalf. In view of this rule, he maintained that the prosecution must produce the inspection note to substantiate the evidence in regard to the manner of taking the sample. To support this contention, he relied on the State of Assam vs. Radha Oil Industries, (1987) 1 GLR 134. In view of this rule, he maintained that the prosecution must produce the inspection note to substantiate the evidence in regard to the manner of taking the sample. To support this contention, he relied on the State of Assam vs. Radha Oil Industries, (1987) 1 GLR 134. There it was held that where the evidence for taking the sample in a pure bottle was found to be shaky and doubtful and no record is maintained by the Food Inspector as contemplated by Rule 9 (e) in respect to his taking of the sample, the report of the Public Analyst based on such sample cannot be acted upon. The second case relied on by him is the State of Assam vs. Lok Nath Saha, (1989) 1 GLJ NOC 17 wherein it was held that where the Food Inspector could not give the names of persons whom he requested to become witnesses and the Food Inspector failed to secure presence of one or more persons as witnesses, the trial Court has rightly given the benefit to the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined the Food Inspector as the sole prosecution witness. In his evidence, he stated that he called persons to witness for his taking of sample but those persons did not agree to come. The fact that he called the persons to be witnesses must have been recorded in his inspection note which he has to maintain under Rule 9 (e). The inspection note which he submitted to Health Officer should, therefore, have been produced as it would reveal whether has in fact called persons »to witness his taking of the sample but those persons did not agree to come to him. That would have corroborated the evidence of the Food Inspector and satisfied the trial Court. Section 10(7) of the Act is the provision to safeguard against the vindictive prosecution. I, therefore, hold that in a case where the prosecution has examined only the Food Inspector, who in his evidence claimed that he called persons to witness of his taking the sample, but that those persons did not agree to come, his, evidence on that point must be corroborated by production of the inspection note unless it is admitted by the accuseds. Non-production of inspection note in such a case, would give rise to adverse inference and that would vitiate the trial. Non-production of inspection note in such a case, would give rise to adverse inference and that would vitiate the trial. The first contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, has to fail. The second contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has proved that a copy of the report of Public Analyst was sent by the Local Health Authority by registered post to the address of the respondent. To support this contention he relied on Exhibit 12 which is the postal receipt for a registered letter addressed to the respondent. He also relied on Exhibit 14 which is the acknowledgement card attached to the registered letter. The acknowledgement card was returned to the sender and it shows that the registered letter was addressed to Jagat Singh, Proprietor of Jagat Singh Restaurant, Ganeshguri Dispur, Guwahati 6.The signature of the addressee on the acknowledgement card was not exhibited by the Food Inspector and neither a postman was examined to prove the service on the respondent. Mr. Narzary has contended that as the registered letter which has been sent to the address of the respondent did not come back to the sender, the Court can presume under section 30 of the Assam General Clauses Act that the registered letter has been delivered to the respondent. He, therefore, contends that the requirement of section 13(2) has been complied with and the trial Court made an error in acquitting the respondent on that count. Mr. J.M. Choudhury strongly contended that section 13(2) is mandatory and non-compliance of the same would vitiate the trial. He contended that actual service must be proved to satisfy section 13(2) of the Act. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in the State of Assam vs. Anukul Chandra Dey, (1985) 1 GLR 529. There it was held that section 13(2) of the Act confers a right on the accused for adopting recourse of proper defence and therefore, the provision directing the prosecuting authority to serve copy of the report of the analysis to the accused after instituting the prosecution is mandatory and non-compliance of the same will vitiate the trial. In my opinion there can be no presumption business in a criminal prosecution in which the accused would have to go to jail and to pay fines. In my opinion there can be no presumption business in a criminal prosecution in which the accused would have to go to jail and to pay fines. The prosecution, therefore, must satisfy section 13(2) of the Act by actually serving a copy of the report of the analysis on the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution should have proved the service of copy of the report of the Public Analyst by examin­ing the postman who delivered the registered letter to the respondent or by exhibiting the signature of the addressee in the postal acknowledgement card. Section 30 of the Assam General Clauses Act cannot be applied in a criminal prosecution which entails imprisonment and fine. As the prosecution did no examine the postman or exhibit the signature of the accused in the acknowledgement card, it must be held that the prosecution, has failed to comply with the requirement of section 13(2) and this has vitiated the trial. Mr. Narzary lastly urged for remanding the case so that the prosecution can produce inspection note to corroborate the evidence of calling witnesses by Food Inspector, and to examine the postal peon to prove delivery of the registered letter to the respondent. This submission has a force, but section 13(2) requires the prosecution to serve a copy of the analysis report to the accused "after institution of the case." This intention obviously is Immediately after institution as it is meant to enable the accused to get the sample kept by Local Health Authority analysed by Central Laboratory While; it is in a fit condition. The instant case was instituted in 1987. So, the prosecution cannot be allowed to serve the copy now. The submission, therefore, has to be rejected. In the result, the revision is dismissed.