As regards the other contention that prosecution did not serve copy of the report of Public Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, therefore, his right for analysis has been prejudiced The argument is fallacious. On appreciation of evidence, it transpires that after the report of Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh Ex.PD dated 08.09.1992 was received, the prosecution was lodged on 09.10.1992 and at the same time, a letter No.47 dated 16.10.1997 alongwith copy of the report of Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh dated 08.09.1992 was dispatched to accused which appears to be a due compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. The letter Ex.PD and postal receipt Ex.PH, proved on record, reveal that it was properly addressed to the accused, thus, there is a presumption unless rebutted otherwise that the letter must have been received by the addressee in due course. Radhey Sham (PW3), Clerk, Local Health Authority, Kurukshetra, has supported this fact that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh was sent to the accused through registered post but still the letter was not received back undelivered. When there is sufficient evidence with regard to dispatch of the letter then it would be presumed that the same was served upon him. As a matter of fact, the accused was not serious about his case as he did not receive the summons., therefore, his presence could be secured after issuance of proclamation under Section 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he appeared for the first time in the Court on 05.06.1997 i.e. after five years of the launching of the prosecution, thus, he cannot take advantage of his own mistake and come after five years to contend that he was not provided opportunity for sending the sample for reanalysis.
