Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 are mandatory in nature and their non-compliance vitiates the conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

T.R. Handa, J.—Whether the non-compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) would vitiate the conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Abulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the main question which falls for consideration in this Criminal Revision Petition. This question has arisen in the following circumstances ;

2. The petitioner runs a petty shop in village Nangal Khurad. On 4-8-1980, PW Prem Chand, Food Inspector visited the petitioners shop and after disclosing his identity and the purpose of his visit, he purchased a sample of sweet balls from the petitioner. This sample was purchased and dealt with on the spot in the manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. One part of the sample was later sent to the Public Analyst alongwith form VII bearing the specimen impressions of the seal used in sealing the sample. The other two parts of the sample were deposited with the Local (Health) Authority. On being analysed by the Food Analyst, one of the sweet-balls contained in the sample was found to contain a red-coal tar dye, other than that permitted under the Rules. On account of the presence of such un-permitted coal-tar dye, the sample was declared adulterated. A complaint under Section 16 read with Section 7 was accordingly filed against the petitioner. On the basis of that complaint the petitioner was charged and tried for the said offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the trial court. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge refused to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence as recorded by the trial court.

3. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court to seek the quashing of the order of his conviction and sentence.

4. Though various grounds had been mentioned initially in the revision petition, Shri S. S. Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the time of hearing, restricted his attack against the conviction of the petitioner to the solitary ground that in the absence of proof of compliance of the provisions of Rules 7 and 18, the conviction was vitiated and could not be sustained. According to the learned counsel both the aforesaid Rules are mandatory in character and unless there is satisfactory proof on the record showing the compliance of such mandatory provisions, the report of the Public Analyst would have no evidentiary value and since the conviction is founded on such report, the same would be vitiated in law.

5. At this stage it would be expedient to read the language of the Rules 7 and 18 which may be extracted. "7. Duties of a Public Analyst.—(1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. (2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by the food inspector or by any other person under the Act. (3) The Public Analyst shall, cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food as may be sent to him by the food inspector or by any other person under the Act. 2(3) The Public Analyst shall within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, deliver to the Local (Health) Authority a report of the result of such anaysis in Form-I : Provided that where any such sample does not conform to the provisions of the Act or these rules, the Public Analyst shall deliver four copies of such report to the said Authority :Provided further that the Public Analyst shall forward a copy of such report also to the person who purchased an article of food and forwarded the same to hi