Admissibility of deceased witness testimony and constructive service of statutory notice sustain food adulteration conviction.

Testimony given on oath by a witness who dies before cross-examination is not inadmissible as a matter of law, though its weight depends on the surrounding evidence; it may be relied on if otherwise trustworthy. A notice sent by registered post to the correct address carries a presumption of service, and unclaimed return after proper delivery attempts constitutes constructive service under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. On that footing, the sampling evidence, analyst's report, and corroborating material were sufficient to prove adulteration, and the acquittal could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testimony of a witness who died after examination-in-chief but before cross-examination could be relied upon. (ii) Whether service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was duly effected when the registered notices were returned unclaimed. (iii) Whether the prosecution proved the food adulteration charges and whether the acquittal was liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the testimony of a witness who died after examination-in-chief but before cross-examination could be relied upon.

Analysis: The testimony of a witness who is examined on oath but dies before cross-examination is not inadmissible as a matter of law. Its weight depends on the facts and circumstances, and it may be considered with the remaining evidence on record. The trial court was therefore not justified in rejecting the evidence solely because cross-examination could not take place due to the witness's death.

Conclusion: The evidence was admissible and could be acted upon, subject to its evidentiary weight.

Issue (ii): Whether service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was duly effected when the registered notices were returned unclaimed.

Analysis: A notice sent by registered post to the correct address raises a presumption of service. Where the postal authorities attempted delivery, left intimation, retained the articles for the prescribed period, and returned them as unclaimed, constructive service is established. The accused cannot defeat the statutory safeguard by remaining unavailable and causing return of the notice as unclaimed.

Conclusion: The requirement of Section 13(2) was complied with and the plea of non-service failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution proved the food adulteration charges and whether the acquittal was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Once the evidence of the sampling witness was held admissible and the statutory notice under Section 13(2) was found duly served, the remaining evidence, including the analyst's report and corroborating witnesses, established that the article sold was insect-infested and unfit for human consumption. The discrepancies in the supporting evidence were immaterial, and the acquittal could not stand.

Conclusion: The respondents were found guilty and the acquittal was reversed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held to have proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in conviction and sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Testimony of a witness who dies before cross-examination remains admissible, and service of a mandatory notice by registered post is complete when it is correctly addressed, duly posted, and returned unclaimed after a proper delivery attempt, giving rise to constructive service.

---