1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal of the State is directed against the judgment order dated 12.2.1988 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 189 of 1982, State v. Shankar Singh S/O Sh. Anop Singh acquitting the accused respondent from alleged offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

3. The learned PP argued that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused - respondent inasmuch as sweets (Thor) seized from the shop of the respondent on 15.4.1982 was made of "Vanaspati Ghee" and was not according to specified standard and therefore, the offence under Section 7/16 of the said Act was made out and despite sufficient evidence being on record, the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused respondent from the said offence.

4. On the other hand, Mr. K.L. Thakur, learned counsel for the accused - respondent relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hira Lal, reported in 2003(1) R.Cr.D. 375 (Raj.) submitted that Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 have not been complied with in the present case also inasmuch as neither Prem Singh with whom samples were sent for testing in the Forensic Lab was examined by the learned trial Court nor anybody has proved sending separate sample along with form No.7 to the said Laboratory and therefore, the prosecution of the respondent - accused was without any foundation and the acquittal is perfectly justified.

5. This Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Hira Lal (supra) has held as under :

"7. R.18 provides that a copy of the memorandum specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day. In the instant case, PW 1 Rampal Singh stated that the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet along with Form No.VII was sent to Public Analyst through a special messenger but the prosecution failed to produce the messenger, who carried the specimen impression of the seal to Public Analyst. The prosecution has also failed to produce the record showing dispatch of the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. Thus, requirements of Sections 17 and 18 have not been complied with and thus, the provisions have not been complied with. PW 1 Rampal Singh has not stated the name of the special messenger who carried the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. Neither the name of the special messenger has been disclosed nor has been produced before the Trial Court that the special messenger carried the specimen impression of the seal intact along with Form No.VII. Compliance of Sections 17 and 18 is mandatory. In State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran, 1988, CrLR (SC) 84 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compliance of Rr.17 and 18 of the Rules is mandatory. It is for the prosecution to establish that the material referred to in Rr.17 and 18 were sent separately to the Public Analyst. Their Lordships further held that there is a purpose behind this requirement when there is non-compliance, the prosecution is to fail. In that case, the prosecution came with the case that a copy of the memor um and specimen impression of the seal, which was used to seal the packet referred to in R.17 were sent by registered post to the Public Analyst. Prosecution failed to produce the record of despatch by registered post and the postal receipt. Having considered the entire evidence, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish that the copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal, which was used to seal the packet referred to in R.17 were sent to the Public Analyst. The prosecution has failed to comply with the requirements of Rr.17 and 18. Thus, in my considered opinion, the Trial Court was justified in acqui