Compliance with mandatory provisions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, particularly Rules 14 and 16, is crucial for the admissibility of evidence and subsequent analysis reports.

1. The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bramhapuri in Regular Criminal Case No. 68 of 2000 dated 18-12-2002, thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(a) punishable under section 16(1)(a)(ii) section 7(i) read with section 2(ia)(m) punishable under section 16(1)(a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules thereunder.

2. I have heard Mrs. S. Z. Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V. A. Laghate the learned Counsel for the respondent. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.

3. The facts giving rise to the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass. Complainant Laxman Taksande was working at Chandrapur as a Food Inspector. Accused Vilas was a proprietor and vendor of M/s Madhao Kirana Stores, Gujari Ward, Bramhapuri, Taluka Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur. The accused was engaged in selling food articles including the groundnut oil at the said place. On 4-10-1999, at about 13.30 pm, the complainant along with panchas visited the premises of M/s Madhao Kirana Stores. The complainant inspected the premises. He noticed that 10 packed tins of 15 kgs. of Suraj Brand groundnut oil were kept for sale. He purchased 450 gms. of groundnut oil from the said shop. The complainant then divided 450 gms. of groundnut oil into three equal parts and put them in three clean, dry and empty glass bottles. Then he sealed those bottles by sealing with wax. Each part of the sample was wrapped in thick brown papers, folded its ends and pasted by means of gum. The complainant then sent one sealed part of the sample along with original memorandum in form No. 7 to the Public Analyst, State Public Health Laboratory, Pune for analysis in a sealed pocket by registered post parcel, on 5-10-1999. On the same date, the complainant sent the remaining two sealed parts of the sample and two copies of memorandum in form No. 7 along with forwarding letter to the Local Health Authority and the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Chandrapur by hand delivery. The report was received from the Public Analyst stating that the sample does not conform to the standards of groundnut oil as per the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 [for short, ‘the Rules, 1955’]. The prosecution was launched. After recording of the evidence of the complainant, the charge was framed against the accused. In support of its case the prosecution examined only two witnesses and the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that there are infirmities in the prosecution case. Those infirmities are that, the sample was not representative sample and the prosecution has not complied with the provisions under Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules, 1955.

4. I have gone through the record of the case. I have heard Mrs. S. Z. Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V. A. Laghate the learned Counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr. V. A. Laghate the learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not properly prepared the sample. The sample was not properly stirred and it was not homogeneous and representative sample. He further contended that as the manner of sending of the sample for analysis was not proper and the sample was not collected in a clean vessel, the prosecution has failed to comply with the Rule 14 of the Rules, 1955. It is further stated that the prosecution has also failed to comply with the provisions under Rule 16(b) of the Rules, 1955 as the container was already wrapped in a thick papers and the ends of the paper were not neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive.

6. The learned APP contended that the learned trial Judge has not considered the aspect that the Food