The word "separately" as used in Rule 18 in the context of R.17 means not together with the container of sample, but separate from it. It does not mean at a separate time or in a separate manner or through a separate person.

K.S.TIWANA, J.

1. The facts of this case are that on 28th of June, 1977, Dr. J.K. Bajaj, Food Inspector, P.W. 1 accompanied by Dr. Gian Parkash, District Health Officer, and his driver went to the premises of Bhagwan Dass Jain respondent in the town of Hoshiarpur. Piara Lal, a resident of Pahari Katra, Hoshiarpur, was also joined. The respondent had in his possession 60 cups of golden milk ice for public sale in a metal box, which was put in a freezer. Disclosing his identity, the Food Inspector served notice Exhibit P. A. on the respondent and thereafter purchased nine cups of golden ice against cash payment of Rs. 9. Each cup weighed 90 grams. The golden milk ice was alleged to contain 10 kilograms of cows milk, two kilograms of water, one kilogram of skimmed milk. 2 kilograms and 600 grams of sugar, 110 grams of G.M.S. and Alginite and apple colour (bush, in traces). The contents of the nine cups were put together and melted in the sun. These were divided into three equal parts and each part was put in a dry clean bottle. 22 drops of formalin were added in each bottle as preservative. Each bottle was then tightly fastened, tied with a thread, sealed and labelled. One bottle out of these was handed over to the respondent. One was sent to the local health authorities. The third sample along with the memorandum in Form VII of Appendix A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was sent to the Public Analyst through Gian Chand peon, a special messenger. A copy of the memorandum in Form VII along with facsimile of the seal was separately sealed in a cover and sent through the special messenger to the public Analyst. The Public Analyst found fat in the contents of the milk ice as 4.16 per cent against the maximum of 2 per vent prescribed in the Rules. He therefore, opined that the sample was adulterated.

2. On receipt of the, result from the Public Analyst, which was communicated to the respondent, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. After summoning the respondent, the prosecution examined Dr. J.K. Bajaj, Food Inspector, as P.W. 1. After his examination, the respondent was charged for the commission of offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Section 7 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. He further cross-examined Dr. J.K. Bajaj P.W. 1. Dr. Bajaj recounted the same story in his statement as has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgement. Dr. Hargobind Singh, Public Analyst, was examined as P.W. 3. When examined at the close of the prosecution case under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent denied the case against him and stated that Dr. J.K. Bajaj came to his shop. On his enquiry, the respondent told him that he dealt in ice-cream, upon which Dr. Bajaj took 20/25 cups of ice-cream stating that he wanted to test the same to find out whether any poisonous element was present in this. He further stated that his signatures had been obtained on a blank paper and that one cup contained only 60 grams of ice-cream.

3. During the course of arguments before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, three points were raised on behalf of the respondent : (i) that Rule 18 of the Rules was not complied with in the sense that the packages containing the copy of the memorandum and the specimen of the seal were not sent separately from the package containing the sample. (ii) that the sample was not of milk ice; and (iii) that the weight of the sample was less than the quantity prescribed in Rule 22. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the respondent on the first point and held that the sample as well as the specimen seal was separately sent. It was accepted that the prosecution had failed to prove that the