1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.2.S1 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, whereby the trial court acquitted the accused respondent for offence u/s. 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short the Act).

2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment and order impugned as well as the record of the trial court.

3. On 22.8.84 RW. 1 Rampal Singh, Food Inspector, Gangrar, took a sample of milk from the accused respondent on being suspected to be adulterated milk. A complaint against the respondent was filed before the trial court. The respondent was put to trail for offence u/s. 7/16 of the Act. Prosecution examined RW. 1 Rampal Singh, P.W. 2 Om Prakash & RW. 3 Shyam Lal and produced Exhibits P/1 to P/11.

4. On appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused respondents was not guilty of the offence charged and was acquitted.

5. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that RW. 1 Rampal Singh, Food Inspector, has proved the prosecution case.

6. I have carefully gone through the judgment impugned of the trial court. The trial court acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the specimen impression of the seal sent for public analysis by registered post as prosecution has failed to produce the registered postal receipt before the trial court and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to comply with rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the Rules). Rule 17 reads as under:

"17. Manner of despatching containers of samples.-The containers of the samples shall be despatched in the following manner, namely:

(a) the sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and in memorandum in Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the public analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means.

(b) The sealed containers of the remaining two parts of the sample and two copies of the memorandum in Form VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Local (Health) Authority immediately but not later than the scudding working day by any suitable means.

(c) The sealed container of one of the remaining two parts of the sample and a copy of the memorandum in Form VII kept with the Local (Health) Authority shall within a period of 7 days be sent to the Public Analyst on requisition made by him to it by any suitable means:

7. Rule 18 provides that a copy of the memorandum and 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, RW. 1 Rampal Singh stated that the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet alongwith 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 despatch of the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. Thus, requirements of sections 16 and 18 have not been complied with and thus, the provisions have not been complied with. RW. 1 Rampal Singh has not stated the name of the special messenger who carried the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. Thus, requirements of sections 17 and 18 have not been complied with. RW. 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