( 1 ) STATE, being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded in favour of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein (for brevity, original accused), has preferred this appeal. The trial Court tried the original accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 7 (1) read with Sec. 16 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1. 954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and acquitted the accused by its judgment and order passed on 25-5-1990 in Criminal Case No. 2121 of 1985.

( 2 ) SUCCINCTLY stated, the facts as it emerges from the complaint, Exh. 1, are as under :- 2. 1 The complainant. Food Inspector, on 8-4-1985 at 13-10 hours visited the shop of the respondents-accused. At the relevant time, accused No. 2, a partner of the original accused No. I. was found dealing in the sale of commodities. Complainant, as required under law, kept two panchas present, and in the presence of panchas, collected sample of Turmeric Powder after giving intimation, vide Exh. 13. The complainant thereafter divided the sample into three equal pans and sealed the samples as required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The complainant also issued receipt, vide Exh. 14 and prepared a panchnama vide Exh. 15. One sample was forwarded to the Public analyst, Baroda while two sealed sample packets were forwarded to the Local (Health) Authority, Mehsana. On receipt of the report. Exh. 25, indicating that the sample is adulterated, the complainant addressed a letter requesting for consent, vide exh. 26 and consent was accorded by the competent authority, vide Exh. 27. and thereafter complaint was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Palanpur. The accused were also served with registered letter Exh. 29 in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 13 (2) of the Act. The accused submitted an application to the Court for forwarding one sample collected by the Inspector from the accused to Central Food Laboratory, vide Exh. 4. The Court, after following the procedure us laid down under Sec. 13 and the Rules, forwarded the sample to the Central Food laboratory. Pune, vide Exh. 6. Central Food Laboratory forwarded its report vide exh. 7 indicating that the substance contained 2. 82% by weight Ash insoluble in dil. Hcl as against the permissible limit of 1. 5% by weight. It also appears from the report that so far as moisture and total Ash are concerned, they were within the permissible limits. There was no coltar dye in the sample analysed. Panch amratbhai PW 2 did not support the prosecution version. However, the panch when examined before the Court has admitted the factum of his signature on the relevant documents. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence held that there is breach of mandatory provisions contained in Sec. 13 (2) of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules. and, therefore, acquitted the accused. State has preferred this appeal against the said order of acquittal.

( 3 ) MR. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted on the basis of evidence on record that Part V of the Rules has been strictly followed, that is to say that Rules 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are strictly complied with. Intimation Exh. 13. Receipt Exh. 14, Panchnama Exh. 15. Memorandum of Public analyst Exh. 18 are all in accordance with the Rules. In the forwarding letter Exh. A, it is clearly revealed that the mandatory provisions have been complied with.

( 4 ) AS against this, Mr. 0za learned Advocate appearing for the original accused submitted that there is tampering with the sample which was forwarded to the Public analyst, and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the report and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. He further submitted that Rule 17 has not been complied with.

( 5 ) SO tar as the submission made by Mr. 0/a with regard to tampering of the sample forwarded to the Public Analyst is concerned, the same is required to he rejected in this case f