JUDGMENT

 A sample of ice-cream purchased by the Food Inspector from the appellant was reported by the Public Analyst to be adulterated because of reduction of milk-fat and total solids in the product. Yet, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not complied with inasmuch as the Food Inspector in support of his word did not adduce in evidence the postal receipt to establish that he had sent not only the sample of ice-cream properly sealed and fastened but the specimen impression of the seal too separately, so that the Public Analyst could certify that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector to him. It was taken that unless the conditions aforementioned were satisfied, the sample was not in a fit condition for analysis. The High Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court taking the view that when the report of the Public Analyst specified that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Ins