Order:- This Revision Petition has been filed by the accused who has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Tellichery for an offence punishable under section 16(1) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 28th March, 1963, at about 2-30 p.m., P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of the Kuthuparamba Panchayat visited the shop of the accused and purchased 300 grams of tea dust which had been exposed for sale among other things. It was then duly sampled and one portion was sent to the Public Analyst and his report showed that the sample contained coal-tar dye and hence it was adulterated. The accused when questioned has admitted the purchase and the sampling. P.W. 2 is one of the persons who was present at the sampling and has attested the mahazar Exhibit P-2. On a consideration of the evidence the learned District Magistrate found that the offence had been made out and convicted and sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 50. Learned Counsel for the accused has now raised various technical objections. The first point is that there was a violation of the mandatory provisions contained in section 10(7) and hence the entire trial and the conviction resulting therefrom are vitiated; secondly, that Exhibit P-4, the certificate of the Public Analyst, does not contain sufficient data and his mere opinion alone cannot be acted upon; thirdly, that there is no valid authorisation for the prosecution of the accused; and lastly, that there was non-compliance of rules 7 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Act. Regarding the objection that there was contravention of the provisions of section 10(7) of the Act, I am unable to see how there is contravention. In this case Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-3 are attested by two witnesses, one of whom is examined as P.W. 2 and the other is the Bill Collector of the Panchayat. Both the attestors need not be examined. Even otherwise, the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of section 10(7) has been considered in the case in Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality v. Kannan1, wherein the entire case-law has been reviewed and following a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. Both the attestors need not be examined. Even otherwise, the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of section 10(7) has been considered in the case in Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality v. Kannan1, wherein the entire case-law has been reviewed and following a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 92, 112 and 114 of 1960 (not reported) it was held that non-compliance with the provision of section 10(7) of the Act would only be an irregularity and the question which would arise on such non-compliance would be whether the accused is prejudiced and whether the evidence adduced is worthy to be acted upon. Here the accused has admitted the purchase and sampling and there could have been no prejudice caused to the accused. A provision similar to that contained in sub-section (7) of section 10 of the Act is to be found in section 103 Criminal Procedure Code. Decisions are uniform that non-compliance with the provisions contained in section 103(1), Criminal Procedure Code, does not render the search illegal, nor does it vitiate the proceedings taken in respect of incriminating articles as a result of a defective search. All these decisions have been referred to by me in the decision cited supra. The latest decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Kishan v. State of U.P.2, has affirmed this view. There it was stated: “It may be that where the provisions of sections 103 and 165, Criminal Procedure Code, are contravened the search can be resisted by the person whose premises are sought to be searched. It may also be that, because of the illegality of the search the Court may be inclined to examine carefully the evidence regarding the seizure. But beyond these two consequences no further consequence ensues and the seizure of the articles is not vitiated.” Coming to the validity of the sanction, Exhibit P-6 is the resolution book of the Panchayat. Resolution No. 144 marked as Exhibit P-6(a)authorises the Executive Officer of the Panchayat to institute prosecution and to give written consent to any person to institute prosecutions. It is on the basis of this resolution that the Executive Officer after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case had authorised the Food Inspector to prosecute the accused. Exhibit P-5 is that order. In the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Purushotham Kaniyalal3. It is on the basis of this resolution that the Executive Officer after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case had authorised the Food Inspector to prosecute the accused. Exhibit P-5 is that order. In the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Purushotham Kaniyalal3. it was held that on the terms of section 20(1) a prosecution could be instituted with the written consent not merely of the State Government, but of the local authority or by a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. So the consent given by the Executive Authority is perfectly legal. Another point that was raised was that the report of the Analyst is vague and his mere opinion cannot be acted upon by the Court. In Exhibit P-3 certificate the Public Analyst has after a microscopical examination stated that coal-tar dye was detected. Standard of tea has been defined and addition of any other extraneous matter makes it adulterated-Vide the decision in Abdul Azeeze v. State1. The last objection that was raised was regarding the non-compliance with rules 7 and 18 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 7 says that on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. Rule 18 says that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. What is stated is that there is no evidence that the Food Inspector had sent the sample seal to the Public Analyst or that the Analyst had actually compared the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received by him under rule 18and in the absence of evidence that Rules have been complied with the report of the Public Analyst cannot be acted upon. As to this, we have the statement of the Food Inspector in this case that the article was duly sampled and seat to the Public Analyst. As to this, we have the statement of the Food Inspector in this case that the article was duly sampled and seat to the Public Analyst. We have the report of the Public Analyst that the sample of tea dust properly sealed and fastened was received by him and that the seals were found intact and unbroken. The report is in Form No. III and when the Public Analyst states that the seal was intact it presupposes that he must have received the specimen impression from the Food Inspector and must have necessarily made the comparison. Under section 114(e) of the Evidence Act the Court may presume that official acts have been regularly performed. Learned Counsel referred to the decision in The State of Gujarat v. Shantaben2, where it was held that in the absence of specific evidence that rules 7 and 18 of the Rules have been complied with it cannot be stated that the report of the Analyst necessarily refers to the sample taken from the accused. For the reasons stated by me I regret my inability to follow this decision. Support for the view taken by me can be had in the decision in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand Surajmal3. There it was contended that there was no link evidence to show that the sample that was sent to the Public Analyst was the same that was taken by the Food Inspector. The only evidence was that of the Food Inspector who had stated that the sample was sent from his office to the Public Analyst. Their Lordships relied on the report of the Analyst that the seals were found intact when the sample was received and held that that was sufficient. Their Lordships further observed that the accused had been given a sealed bottle at the time of taking of the sample from him and if he wanted to challenge the fact that the sample that had been sent to the Public Analyst was not the same that had been taken from him or that the sample that had been sent had been tampered with he could have sent the sample with him for analysis as provided under section 12 of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that this point had not been taken by the accused either in the trial Court or even in the Revision Petition filed in this Court. It may also be mentioned here that this point had not been taken by the accused either in the trial Court or even in the Revision Petition filed in this Court. The objection has no force and has only to be repelled. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned District Magistrate was right in finding that the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the accused. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Petition dismissed.