Non-compliance with procedural rules can lead to acquittal in cases of food adulteration.

( 1 ) THE Food Inspector, Circle No. 11, Municipal Corporation hyderabad, filed a complaint against the accused on 25-8-75 alleging that the accused has contravened the provisions of S. 7 read with S. 2 (1) (a) and S. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (herein after referred to as the Act ). The Food Inspecfor visited the shop of the accused on 10 2-75- After complying with the formalities prescribed in the Rules framed under the Act, he purchased 375 grams of groundnut oil for Rg. 315 P. He divided the oil into three equal parts and put them in three empty, dry and clean bottles, corked them, and affixed his seal. He gave one sample to the accused, and sent another sample to the Public analyst while retaining the third with himself. The Public Analyst in his report dated 22-3-75 came to the conclusion that the sample contained about 7% of castor oil and was, therefore, adulterated. It is not known as to when exactly the report was received by the Food Inspector; but we have it in the evidence of P. W. 2 that on 19-6-75 he received the record in the case along with the Public Analyst s report which would go to show that the report of the Analyst was received before 19-6-75. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 25-8-75. The trial Court came to the conclusion that under R. 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it was incumbent on the part of the Food inspector to send a coj y of the report of the Public Analyst within 10 days of its receipt by him, and since the Food Inspector has not complied with that provision, the accused was entitled to acquittal. The trial Court, therefore acquitted the accused.