P.N.BAKSHI,J. - (1.) - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7|16 of the P.P. Act and sentenced to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in ap­peal by the Sessions Judge. Allahabad. Hence this revision.
(2.) A sample of Jeera was purchased by the Food Inspector from the applicant's Gro­cery Shop which of analysis by the public analyst was found to be adulterated. The report of the Public Analyst was relied upon by the courts below in upholding the con­viction of the accused, spurt from the other evidence on record. The report of the Pub­lic Analyst was as follows:- (1) Organic extraneous matter 13.6 per cent, (2) Foreign edible seeds 0.1 per cent, (3) Jeera 86.3 percent. In the opinion of the Public Analyst the or­ganic extraneous matter exceeds the maxi­mum permissible limit of 5 per cent.
(3.) THE applicant's counsel has contended that the report of the Public Analyst indi­cated that he had caused the sample to be analyse of which the result was given by him in Form 3. The person, who actually analysed the sample in the laboratory of the Public Analyst was not produced in evidence to prove the report. He has, thus, argued that the report of the Public Analyst is in-admissible in evidence. Section 13(5) of the Food Adulteration Act reads as fol­lows:- Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Public Analyst, unless it has been susperseded under sub-section (3), or any document purporting to be a certificate signed by the Director of the Central .Food Laboratory, may be used as evidence of the facts stated therein in any proceeding under this Act or under Sections 272 to 276 of the Indian Penal Code." ;