JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The accused, a grocer, was presented by the Food Inspector, Balangir, u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short, 'the Act'). Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, upon trial, found him guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 600/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred the present revision challenging the judgments of both the Courts below. 2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the accused owns a retail grocery shop in village Sadaipali. Food Inspector, PW 1, visited his shop on 27-12-1989 at 9.30 a.m. and having suspected Besan and mustard oil displayed for sale for human Consumption to be adulterated, made statutory purchase of 600 grams of Besan and 375 grams of mustard oil, divided each of the said items into three equal parts, kept each part in clean and dry bottles, sealed the same properly in presence of witnesses and sent one, bottle from each item to the Public Analyst for examination. On receipt of the reports of the Public Analyst that Besan and mustard oil were adulterated, launched prosecution against the accused after obtaining written consent from the CDMO Balangir. 3. The plea of the accused was denial simpliciter. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, examined tree witnesses and brought in evidence several documents and the learned trial Court upon hearing, believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as hereinbefore stated. 5. 3. The plea of the accused was denial simpliciter. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge, examined tree witnesses and brought in evidence several documents and the learned trial Court upon hearing, believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused as hereinbefore stated. 5. Though learned counsel appearing for the accused raised various contentions and attacked the judgments of both the Courts below, he ultimately confined his submission and laid stress that there had been non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act; inasmuch as, copy of the Public Analyst's report was not supplied to the accused, as a consequence, he was denied of his right to get the food articles analysed by the Central laboratory and, it Is because of this non-observance of statutory required that he is entitled to Additional Advocate contended that aforesaid submission the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that oral evidence of the Food Inspector, PW1coupled with the documentary evidence, viz., postal receipt and postal intimation clearly prove that copy of the Public Analyst's report had been received by the accused and on assessment of the evidence, factual aspect of the case having been accepted by the two Courts below, this sitting revision should be slow to disturb the same. 6. Before adverting to the contention raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to relevant portion of Section 13 of the Act which reads as under: "13. 6. Before adverting to the contention raised by the counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to relevant portion of Section 13 of the Act which reads as under: "13. Report of public analyst--(1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as my 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." (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under Sub-section (1) to the effect that the, article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed u/s 14A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." By having the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 in the statute book the Legislature intended that if the Analyst reports that, the article of food is adulterated, then the accused vendor as of right can apply to the Court to get the other sample kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and obtain the final and conclusive report. In order to enable the accused vendor to exercise such right, it is necessary to make available to him the report of the Public Analyst. Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which is almost pari materia with old Rule 9 (j) provides that a copy of Public Analyst's report should be sent within ten days of the institution of the prosecution to the person from whom the sample of article was taken, by registered post or by hand by the Local (Health) Authority. From a cursory look at Section 13(2) what transpires is that the Public Analyst's report is not final and conclusive. From a cursory look at Section 13(2) what transpires is that the Public Analyst's report is not final and conclusive. On the application being moved by accused vendor if the Court gets the food article examined by the Central Food Laboratory and obtains a report, then that report would supersede the earlier report. But if the accused does not exercise his option, in that case the report of the Public Analyst becomes final and conclusive. 7. It admits of no doubt that revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. While sitting in revision the Court is only to see correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order of any proceeding of a subordinate Court challenged before it. It is equally true that the power of revision not only extends to consider and examine the legality of the order but also the correctness and propriety of the proceeding, in appropriate cases the Court can go into the question of fact to see the legality of the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. If it is found that the ultimate conclusion is without any basis or evidence or admissible evidence, then the Court can annul the same. Needless to say, revisional Court cannot go into question of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence justifying the conclusion. But, however, it has power to examine the admissibility of evidence on the basis of which the Court below based its finding. 8. Keeping in view the scope of revisional jurisdiction, it is desirable to have a bird's eye view on the evidence of the Food Inspector, PW 1, to see whether the accused was aware of the result of the analysis since his grievance was that a copy of the Analyst's report had not been supplied to him. In examination in-chief, PW 1 stated that copy of Analyst's report had been sent by registered post to the accused by the CDMO vide his office letter No. 105 dated 9-4-1990 and since the acknowledgement receipt was not returned, on enquiry being made, the Superintendent of Post Offices intimated that the registered letter had been received by the addressee. He gave altogether a different version when his evidence was challenged during the cross-examination saying that he had personally despatched the report to the accused after obtaining signature of the CDMO on the forwarding letter. He gave altogether a different version when his evidence was challenged during the cross-examination saying that he had personally despatched the report to the accused after obtaining signature of the CDMO on the forwarding letter. These two contradictory statements of PW 1 were not reconciled by the prosecution. Even both the Courts below did not apply their mind to such conflicting version of PW 1 white appreciating his evidence. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate in course of argument submitted that evidence of PW 1 cannot be doubted because he being an official witness had no hostile animus towards the accused and therefore his version regarding despatch of the Analyst's report to the accused should receive due weight notwithstanding certain minor contradictions appearing therein. True it is, statement of official witnesses, viz. police officer, Food inspector or any other public servants cannot be viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are interested in the ultimate success of the case. They perform their statutory functions enjoined upon them and in due course when the case comes to Court, their attendance is procured as witnesses, For that they should not be stamped as interested witnesses and their evidence should not be eschewed out of consideration. In this context, I am reminded of what the apex Court has dexterously observed in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M.M. Mathew and Another, : ''...... prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly end conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case." However, it is not the law that whatever may be the evidentiary value of the statement of an official witness. Court has to accept and rely upon it overlooking the contradictions and inconsistencies brought in during cross-examination. An official witness is not necessarily a truthful witness and so no presumption of correctness can be attached to his testimony. His whole evidence has to be assessed with touch-stone of credibility and only thereafter if the same is found to be credit-worthy, then there will be no harm to act upon It without insisting for corroboration. An official witness is not necessarily a truthful witness and so no presumption of correctness can be attached to his testimony. His whole evidence has to be assessed with touch-stone of credibility and only thereafter if the same is found to be credit-worthy, then there will be no harm to act upon It without insisting for corroboration. Coming to the case in hand, evidence of PW 1 as regards the despatch of the Analyst's report to the accused as discussed above being not above reproach, it would be unsafe to rely upon the same for arriving at finding that copy of analyst's report had been sent to the accused in due. compliance with the statutory requirement. When evidence of PW 1 is discrepant in fitness of things it would have been proper on the part of the prosecution to bring in evidence the entry of the relevant register to prove that Analyst's report had been despatched in due course of official business. That having not been done and there being no acceptable evidence that the accused had been supplied with copy of Analyst's report as required under law, serious prejudice has been caused to the accused and on this ground alone he is entitled to an order of acquittal. 10. In the result, the revision is allowed and the judgments of the both the Courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge. Final Result : Allowed