JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. 1. State has come in the present appeal aggrieved by judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi, whereby respondent was acquitted for offence under section 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. respondent was convicted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi vide Criminal Case No. 131/1981 by judgment dated March 24th, 1986 who was sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed. In default of payment of fine, sentence of two months imprisonment was ordered. 2. Prosecution was launched on the basis of mustard oil kept by the accused Vanshrakhan Gupta was suspected to be adulterated by the Food Inspector Thakur Prasad Singh (PW-1), when he had inspected the shop of accused. He had given notice of Form No. 6 in the presence of witnesses and purchased 375 grams of mustard oil from accused after payment of Rs. 5.62/- and got the receipt Ex. P/3. The sample so purchased was divided in three equal parts and kept in sealed bottles and the seal of Local Health Authority was put in the presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest Ex. P/3 of seizure. 3. The trial Court appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion of guilt. In an appeal preferred by the accused before the Court below the Court has proceeded only on the ground to reverse the order of acquittal that the report of the public analyst has to be in Form 3 as in the report Ex. P/8 it was not mentioned by the public analyst in his hand-writing that seals were received intact and they had not been tampered and they were found similar. The Sessions Judge has relied on a decision of this Court in case of State vs. Jagdish, 1987 F.A.J. 236. 4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that it is not necessary that the public analyst should certify in handwriting in its report the fact that the seal was found intact by them of the sample which was sent for the purpose of analysis. Further submission of learned counsel for the State that the presumption under section 114, Evidence Act is available in such cases. Further submission of learned counsel for the State that the presumption under section 114, Evidence Act is available in such cases. It is submitted that mentioning in prescribed proforma even in the printed form of the facts found by the public analyst is enough compliance if the public analyst had not found seal intact, he could have scored entry in the printed form and have very well mentioned that the seal was not found intact. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it cannot be said that rule 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has been complied with in the instant case. It is further submitted that more than 20 years have elapsed since the taking of sample. He has further submitted that submission of report in printed form does not show application of mind at the hands of authority. Rule 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 provides that on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person the public analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seal thereon. Proviso (1) to Rule 7 is duty cast on the public analyst if sample container seal found to be in broken condition or unfit for analysis and that has to be informed within 7 days. As per Rule 7(1) the facts of condition at the time of receipt of sample are obviously required to be noted in the hand writing of public analyst, but, as per the Rule 7(1) it cannot be culled out when the final report has been sent and in final report the fact which is required to be mentioned as to in what condition sample was received cannot be in a printed form. Rule 7(3) deals with sending of report by public analyst within a period of forty days from the date of receipt of sample for analysis, send by registered post or by hand to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of such analysis in Form III. The two stages of receipt of sample and final report are different. 6. Sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as under: "13. Report of Public Analyst. The two stages of receipt of sample and final report are different. 6. Sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act reads as under: "13. Report of Public Analyst. - (1) The Public analyst shall deliver, in such form as maybe prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis." Sub-section (1) of section 13 prescribes that the report may be in prescribed form and form has been prescribed there is no requirement of mentioning a particular fact in hand writing in final report. The requirement of receipt stage of sample under rule 7(1) cannot be read for the final report which has to be in the prescribed Form III as per section 13(1) of the Act. 7. This question has come up for consideration before this Court in case of Revta vs. State of M.P., 1987 MPLJ 559 . Question arose for consideration that mere recital in the printed form of the report as to the comparison of seals does not constitute proof of such comparison without the oral evidence of the Public Analyst or any officer authorized by him to comply with the rule. Reliance has been placed on the decision in case of State of M.P. vs. Jagdishchand (supra,) wherein it has been held in para 9 that the compliance of Rule 7(1) which requires comparison of the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and noting the condition of the seals thereon by the Public Analyst or any officer authorised by him, can be proved only by examining the Public Analyst or the officer authorised by him to compare and note the condition of the seals. This Court in Revta vs. State of M.P. (supra) had relied on Apex Court decision in case of K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai 1976 2 FAC 69 and a portion of the extract reproduced from that Supreme Court decision is reproduced below:-- "The High Court was not at all impressed with the contention based on Rule 13. It relied on the report or the Public Analyst Exh. It relied on the report or the Public Analyst Exh. P-9 which was in Form III as prescribed by the Rules in which it was stated, inter alia that the Public Analyst had received from the Food Inspector a sample of compounded misky asafoetida marked No. C.2/65 for analysis, properly sealed and packed and that he had found the seal intact and unbroken. The contention which was pressed and which has been reiterated before us is that it was nowhere stated in Exh. P/9 that the Public Analyst had compared the specimen impression of the seal with the seal of the packet of the sample. The High Court relied on the principle that official acts must be presumed to have been regularly performed. Under Rule 7, the Public Analyst has to compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately on receipt of the packet containing the sample for the analysis. The High Court conceded that it must be presumed that the Public Analyst acted in accordance with the Rules and he must have compared the specimen impression received by him with the seal of the container." 8. Thus, it is apparent from the Apex Court decision in case of K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai (supra) that Public Analyst has to compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately on receipt of the packet containing the sample for the analysis. In the said case of K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai facts situation indicated that it was not stated in the report that the Public Analyst had compared the specimen impression of the seal with the seal of the packet of the sample. The Court relied on the principle that official acts must be presumed to have been regularly performed. In the instant case there is mention though in the printed Form. Such mention is not required in handwriting in the report in Form-III. 9. Learned counsel Shri P.R. Bhave has pressed into service the decision of this Court in case of State of M.P. vs. Jagdishchand (supra) in paragraph 9. In the instant case there is mention though in the printed Form. Such mention is not required in handwriting in the report in Form-III. 9. Learned counsel Shri P.R. Bhave has pressed into service the decision of this Court in case of State of M.P. vs. Jagdishchand (supra) in paragraph 9. True the view taken is that the recital in the printed form of the report of the Public Analyst as to comparison of seals cannot be regarded as proof of such comparison without the Public Analyst or any officer authorised by him, who compared the seals, having been examined for proving the same by oral evidence. However, in view of decision of the Apex Court in K.K. Ramkrishna Pillai (supra) followed in Revta vs. State of M.P. (supra), the submission raised on the strength of decision in State of M.P. vs. Jagdish Chandra (supra) is not acceptable. 10. This question further came for consideration before the Karnataka High Court, where a full bench considered the question in case of State of Karnataka vs. Ahmed and another, AIR 1989 Kar 115 , wherein in paragraph 4 it has been held as under:-- "From a plain reading of Sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Act, it is clear that the report of the Public Analyst is admissible as evidence of all the facts stated therein and not merely the facts relating to the result of the analysis. The said provision apparently has been made with a view to secure formal evidence of facts without requiring the Public Analyst to attend the Court and to give evidence in every case, and in the interest of effective administration of the Act. The said object of the Legislature would be defeated if we hold that the report of the Public Analyst can be used as evidence only in respect of the result of the analysis and not in respect of the other facts stated therein." The question was further considered whether the report has to be in printed form or not. The said object of the Legislature would be defeated if we hold that the report of the Public Analyst can be used as evidence only in respect of the result of the analysis and not in respect of the other facts stated therein." The question was further considered whether the report has to be in printed form or not. In paragraph 6 the Court came to the conclusion that "As the Public Analyst has to send many reports every day, it cannot be expected of him to write down everything in his own hand and as it is open to him to score off the relevant printed portion regarding the seals and to write that the seals did not tally, the fact that the report has to be in printed form does not by itself show that the Public Analyst had not observed the seal at all and he had not applied his mind to that aspect." 11. I, am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in case of State vs. Ahmed (supra) by Karnataka High Court. In case of Laxman Sitaram vs. The State, AIR 1967 Mys 33, it has been held that the contents of the printed form III which has been prescribed under Rule 7(3) seem to satisfy the requirement of both sub-rules (1) and (3) of the Rule 7 of the Act. Though it is true that ipse dixit of the Authority cannot be said to be binding on the Court. 12. The report Ex. P/8 indicates that in the sample there was presence of argemone oil. The sample of mustard oil was found unsuitable for human consumption as it contains argemone oil which is hazardous for health. 13. Trial Court has found that section 13(2) was complied with. Notice P/9 was given and the report of the public analyst was despatched to the accused. Accused has also admitted that he had received the notice. Sample was required to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Thus, for non-deposit of requisite fees the right was available to the accused. He has failed to lead evidence in rebuttal. He has led no defence evidence. 14. From the deposition of Thakur Prasad Singh it is apparent that he had purchased 375 grams of mustard oil after making payment of which receipt is Ex. Thus, for non-deposit of requisite fees the right was available to the accused. He has failed to lead evidence in rebuttal. He has led no defence evidence. 14. From the deposition of Thakur Prasad Singh it is apparent that he had purchased 375 grams of mustard oil after making payment of which receipt is Ex. P/3 and it was divided by him three equal parts of 125 grains each. He has stated as to the sealing and specific seal was affixed which was signed by the Local Health Authority, Sidhi. Signatures of the witnesses and the accused were also obtained on the container. One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Rewa as per the memo Ex. P/5 and two parts were kept in the deposit of Local Health Authority. Thereafter notice was served under section 13(2). In the cross-examination he has deposed that the accused wire possessing the requisite licence for sale. He had not served the notice of search as it is not required. It was not dark when the sample was taken. Aim giving notice to the accused he had bought 375 grams mustard oil and he had sealed the same oil in the bottles. On the slip which was put on the bottle, signatures of witnesses were obtained. 15. Prabhunath Dubey (PW-2) has deposed that the food Inspector had inspected the shop of accused. Food Inspector had taken the sample of mustard oil from 3-4 tins kept in the shop. He stated that in the notice which was given to the accused, on B to B portion his signatures are there. He has also supported the factum of purchase vide receipt Ex./P/3, on which his signature are present from B to B portion. He has stated that the sample was taken from each of the containers, but, that by itself does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. No such suggestion in cross-examination of the food Inspector was made that he had collected the sample from other container which was not meant for storage of mustard oil. For want of putting the suggestion made to witness Prabhunath Dubey in cross- examination to Thakur Prasad Singh, deposition of Thakur Prasad Singh cannot be doubted. Further different suggestion was made to the witness goes to show that defence was not consistent and contradictory. For want of putting the suggestion made to witness Prabhunath Dubey in cross- examination to Thakur Prasad Singh, deposition of Thakur Prasad Singh cannot be doubted. Further different suggestion was made to the witness goes to show that defence was not consistent and contradictory. The accused is unable to rebut the presumption in the circumstances which is available in the case. 16. Sentence which has been imposed by the trial Court is two months, thus the sentence is lesser than the minimum. No doubt about it that learned counsel has rightly submitted that the appellant is by now around of 70 years, but, that by itself cannot be consideration to not impose sentence of imprisonment which is prescribed by the statute. Accused was found selling mustard oil which was not fit for human consumption and hazardous to health the matter of urgency is being finalized at the stage of High Court after two decades. It cannot further be worsened by giving go by the jail sentence. It is regrettable that owing to delay criminal administration of justice is becoming ineffective but delay by itself in the case of particularly of public wrong can not come in the way not to impose jail sentence. 17. In the result the appeal is allowed, the judgment passed by the Court below is set aside and the judgment passed by C.J. M. of convicting the respondent is restored of 2 months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-.