IMPORTANT POINT
Word "separately" used in Rule 18 of PFA Rules, 1955 has been intended to convey the sense that copy of memorandum and specimen impression of seal has to be sent independently of articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The State of Himachal Pradesh calls in question legality of judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court affirming judgment of the trial court holding that respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the accused No. 1) was not guilty of the accusations under Sections 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the Act ).

2. The prosecution version which led to trial of the accused is essentially as follows :

On 11.4.1985, the Food Inspector took sample of "Shakkar" from the shop of the accused No. 1. He purchased 600 gms. of "Shakkar" for analysis after serving the requisite notice. Thereafter sample articles were sealed and one such sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis the sample was found to be containing unpermitted acid coal tar of orange shade. Prosecution was launched after service of notice in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act. During trial, the accused No. 1 applied under Section 19(2) seeking to implead Jain Trading Company represented through its manager - respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the Vendor ). The vendor was impleaded as accused No. 2. In order to establish its accusation, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced the record relating to the sanction and the Public Analyst report. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Cr.P.C. ) accused No. 1 took the stand that though sample was taken, there was no proper mixing and that it was not taken from the place indicated in the complaint. He further took the plea that his brother had purchased the articles in question from accused No. 2 which was not meant for sale but was for consumption by animals. Accused No. 2 took the plea that articles in question were never sold to accused No. 1, and the receipt which was produced was fictitious. Trial court by judgment and order dated 24.10.1990 held that accusations were not established, and recorded the findings in favour of the accused. Firstly, it was held that the sanction order was defective, and secondly there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the `Rules ). For coming to the second conclusion it was held that there was no definite material about despatch of the seal impression and the memo Ex. P-E separately. So far as culpability of accused No. 2 is concerned, with reference to Section 19 it was held that the accused No. 1 failed to show that the bill on which he placed reliance was a genuine one and that the sample article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that it was sealed in the same state as he had purchased. The State questioned correctness of the judgment before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the Trial Court was not justified in its conclusion about the absence of valid sanction. It, however, held that the prosecution has failed to prove despatch of seal impression and memo separately which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 18 of the Rules. It also upheld the acquittal of accused No. 2.

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of the witnesses has not been properly analysed by the trial Court and the High Court. The Public Analyst in his certificate has categorically stated that the seals and the memo received separately were intact and there was no defect therein. It was submitted that at any rate no prejudice has been caused and shown by the accused. It was urged that when the Public Analyst was satisfied about due despatch of the articles and there was not even any suggestion about any prejudice caused or that the report of the Public Analyst did not reflect the correct state of affairs, the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court cannot be maintained.

4. In response, learned coun