JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the accused, upon having been tried for the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short: the Act) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, was convicted for such offence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The learned Sessions Judge on 10.5.1995 allowed the appeal preferred by the accused and after setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned Magistrate acquitted him of the offence. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on a technical ground that the Public Analyst, Chandigarh was not competent to analyse the sample under the Act in respect of an article of food pertaining to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The report Ext. P-7 of the Public Analyst, was, therefore, ignored. 3. Admittedly, the sample of "Besan" taken by the Food Inspector from the accused was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst at Chandigarh and such sample was found to be adulterated since it contained the admixture of wheat starch. 4. There is also no dispute that there is a Public Analyst for the entire State of Himachal Pradesh at Kandaghat since 1984. 5. Vide notification No. M. 19-5-20/57 dated 26.10.1958 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Act, the then Leutenant Governor, Himachal Pradesh, was pleased to appoint Public Analyst Punjab, as the Public Analyst for Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of testing and analysing any samples of articles of food and drink. 6. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification No. HFW-B(A) 2-6/83 dated 9.4.1984 was pleased to order the setting up of a composite, testing Laboratory at Kandaghat in District Solan for analysing/testing of the samples taken by the various Departments listed therein. Such list includes the Health and Family Welfare Department. Such notification, though not specifically stated therein, is purported to have been issued under Section 8 of the Act in sofar as testing/analysing of the samples under the Act are concerned. 7. The subsequent notification dated 9.4.1984 was not issued in supersession of the previous notification dated 26.10.1958. Such list includes the Health and Family Welfare Department. Such notification, though not specifically stated therein, is purported to have been issued under Section 8 of the Act in sofar as testing/analysing of the samples under the Act are concerned. 7. The subsequent notification dated 9.4.1984 was not issued in supersession of the previous notification dated 26.10.1958. Therefore, the effect of the subsequent notification would be that both the Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh and the Public Analyst, Himachal Pradesh, at Kandaghat would have the power and jurisdiction to test and analyse the sample of article of food pertaining to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 8. Under the law, there is no bar to have more than one Public Analyst for the same local area. (See: Gajraj v. State and others, (1982 (2) F.A.C. 213). In the absence of any material to show that the earlier notification dated 26.10.1958 stands superseded, revoked or cancelled, the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in holding that the Public Analyst at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to test/analyse a sample of food article in respect of State of Himachal Pradesh. There is yet another significant aspect of the case. No objection as to the validity of report Ext. P-7 and as to the competency of Public Analyst at Chandigarh was ever raised by the accused before the learned trial court. Such objection came to be raised for the first time in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The question of validity of appointment of Public Analyst is a question of fact. The Honble Supreme Court in Messrs Rameshwar Das Chhotey Lai an others v. Union of India and others, (1979 RAJ. 173) that the question as to the validity of appointment of Public Analyst and/or the Food Inspector should more appropriately be raised before the trial Magistrate and be decided by that Court on the material that may be placed before it. The opening part of the report of the Public Analyst, which is Ext. P-7, reads:— "I hereby certify that I, Dr. Hargobind Singh, Msc. The opening part of the report of the Public Analyst, which is Ext. P-7, reads:— "I hereby certify that I, Dr. Hargobind Singh, Msc. Ph.D., Public Analyst for all local areas in Punjab, Union Territory Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh, duly appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954......." In view of the above recital, the learned Sessions Judge should have presumed that the appointment was valid unless something to the contrary was brought on the record by the accused to rebut such presumption, Nothing has come on the record to show that the Public Analyst, Chandigarh was not competent to test/analyse a sample of food article pertaining to the areas forming part of Himachal Pradesh. The case can be looked into from another angle. Prior to the reorganisation of States in the year 1966, Parwanoo was a part of Punjab. Such area came to be merged in Himachal Pradesh only on reorganisation. Therefore, Public Analyst Punjab at Chandigarh had the power and competence to test and analyse the sample of food articles of Parwanoo area. All the rules, laws, notifications issued by the State of Punjab continue to be in force in such merged areas till revoked, amended, repealed and/or superceded by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh continues to have the power to test and analyse the same pertaining to Parwanoo area. 9. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the accused as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside, and the conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his judgment dated 7.1.1993 is restored. 10. The accused who is on bail is directed to surrender himself to his bail bonds before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, within four weeks from today and to receive and serve out the sentence imposed upon him. On the failure of the accused to do so, the learned Magistrate shall issue distress warrants against the accused and commit him to prison for serving out the sentence. Appeal allowed. -