Judgment.- This appeal is filed by the State against the order acquitting the respondent-accused in a food adulteration case. On 15th October, 1963 at about 11 A.M. the Food Inspector attached to the Ettumanoor Panchayat inspected the Cherpunkal Milk Supplies Sales Depot and purchased from the accused 24 ozs. of curd out of 18 edangazhies kept in a jar and exposed for sale, on payment of 50 nP. The curd so purchased was as per the rules divided into three equal parts and poured into three clean and dry containers which were duly sealed and labelled. One of the packets was delivered to the accused, a second forwarded to the Public Analyst, Trivandrum for analysis and the third produced in Court. The Analyst certified that the sample contained not less than 60 per cent of added water as calculated from the solids non-fat content and is therefore adulterated. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector gave evidence that he inspected the depot and purchased from the accused 24 ozs. of curd out of the quantity exposed for sale in the jar after notifying that it was meant for analysis. He proved Exhibit P-1 notice served on the accused and accepted by him and Exhibit P-2 bill given by the accused for the price paid. He goes on to describe how the curd so purchased was divided into three equal parts and poured into clean and dry bottles and corked, labelled and sealed, one bottle being handed over to the accused and the other two despatched to the Court and the Public Analyst. He proved Exhibit P-4 mahazar which was prepared by him evidencing the sale and the consequent action taken by him in the presence of two adjacent shop-keepers and attested by them and the accused. P.W. 2 one of the attestors while admitting his signature and the presence of the accused in the shop at the time denied having seen the purchase and sampling and said he only saw a sealed bottle placed on the table. He had tobe declared hostile and cross-examined. He admits he is literate and does not normally sign papers without being apprised of its contents. P.W. 3 is the other attestor. He also turned hostile and took up the same attitude as P.W. 2. He had tobe declared hostile and cross-examined. He admits he is literate and does not normally sign papers without being apprised of its contents. P.W. 3 is the other attestor. He also turned hostile and took up the same attitude as P.W. 2. He is also a literate person who insists that he signed without being made aware of the contents because it was reported by the Food Inspector that it is only to sign that he saw the bottle on the table. Both these witnesses are traders in the adjacent rooms of the same building and it is only natural that they were not prepared to give evidence against their friend and comrade. Their cross-examination clearly indicates that they were purposely suppressing the truth. When the accused was questioned about the prosecution evidence he denied having sold the curd to the accused and said that he is but a member of the Co-operative Society who stepped into the store on seeing the crowd and was told by the salesman that he had purchased the curd for personal use and was keeping it there to be taken home. When he was pointedly asked about Exhibit P-1 notice the receipt of which was acknowledged by him by putting his signature and Exhibit P-2 bill given by him for the price of the curd he gave the evasive answer “Society-vaha business sthalamana Cheruppungul K. 83 number Milk Supply Co-operative Society uday branch Ettumanoor enna sthalamana*”. When he was questioned about his having attested Exhibit P-4 mahazar he replied that he did not read it and was compelled by P.W. 1 to sign it under threat of prosecution. D.W.1, the Assistant Secretary of the Cherpunkal Milk Supplies Co-operative Society, Ltd., No. K. 83 was cited to prove that the store from which P.W. 1 effected the purchase was a branch of that Society and that the accused was only a committee member of the Society of which the President and Secretary were K. V. John and C. L. Sebastian respectively and that the Society was dealing in milk alone and not curd and that the salesman was one V. T. Pathrose. Exhibits D-1 and D-2 were also filed to show that the rent of the sales depot at Ettumanoor was being paid by the Secretary of the Cherpunkal Society No. K. 83 and the accused was only a member of the governing committee. Exhibits D-1 and D-2 were also filed to show that the rent of the sales depot at Ettumanoor was being paid by the Secretary of the Cherpunkal Society No. K. 83 and the accused was only a member of the governing committee. The order of acquittal is based on two grounds. To put ground No.1, in the words of the learned Magistrate himself “the accused is neither the owner of the property nor the agent authorised to sell the same as an agent or as a servant and there could not have been any sale of the curd in question by the accused to the complainant, nor could there be an exposure of it for sale by the accused so as to render him liable”. *The italicised words are in Malayalam. render him liable. The second ground is the absence of evidence:o prove that a sample seal was forwarded to the Analyst for comparison as is enjoined by Rule 7, and the Analyst compared the specimen impressions with the seal on the packet and the outer cover intact and unbroken as enjoined by rule 17." Both these grounds are untenable and the order of acquittal is unsustainable. There is clinching evidence in the case that the accused sold the curd to the Food Inspector and as the liability of the vendor is absolute under the Act the question whether he is the servant of the society or a committee member is irrelevant. The second objection is equally untenable. Under section 114(1) of the Evidence Act the Court may presume that official sets have been regularly performed. When the Food Inspector was in the box it was not suggested to him that he did not forward the specimen seal as enjoined by Rule 7. There is the report of the analyst that the seals were found intact and it has to be presumed that he compared the seal with the specimen seal. He could not certify to that effect without making himself sure that there was no tampering of any sort in the seal. As observed by the Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand1 if the accused wanted to challenge the fact or establish that the samplesent for analysis was tampered with it was open to him to send the sample with him for analysis as provided in section 12 of the Act. As observed by the Allahabad High Court in Municipal Board, Faizabad v. Lal Chand1 if the accused wanted to challenge the fact or establish that the samplesent for analysis was tampered with it was open to him to send the sample with him for analysis as provided in section 12 of the Act. This decision has been followed by this Court in Criminal R.P. No. 41 of 1964 where a similar objection was taken and repelled. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the accused is convicted under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 in default of payment of which the will undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The fine will be paid within a fortnight. M.C.M. ----- Appeal allowed.