Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were mandatory and their non-compliance could lead to the presumption of prejudice to the accused, but Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was not mandatory and its non-compliance would not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused.

HARBANS LAL, J.

1. This appeal on behalf of the State is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali, dated October 31, 1977, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted for the offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (hereinafter called the Act). According to the prosecution case, Shri Ram Raji Jindal, Food Inspector, accompanied by Dr. R. S. Agnihotri, went to the shop of the accused-respondent on August 21, 1975, at about 8.35 A.M. and purchased 660 millilitres milk for Rs. 1.45 out of ten litres of milk lying for sale. This milk was divided into three equal parts and put into three separate bottles. After adding 18 drops of formalin, the bottles were sealed in accordance with rules. One bottle was handed over to the accused, the other was deposited with the Chief Medical Officer, which was sent to the Public Analyst, Haryana, at Chandigarh, and the third bottle remained with the Chief Medical Officer. One copy of the memo along with specimen impression of the seal used in the sample was also sent to the Public Analyst. According to the report of the Public Analyst, the sample was found to be adulterated, the milk fat being 57 per cent deficient and milk solids not fat was 45 per cent deficient as against the minimum standard prescribe ed. In view of the same, a complaint was filed against the accused by the Food Inspector. In evidence, the prosecution examined Food Inspector Ram Raji Jindal, as P. W. 1 and Dr. R. S. Agnihotri, as P. W. 2. The report of the Public Analyst and other documents relating to the purchase of the milk etc. were also produced in evidence. The accused, in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., denied all the allegations and alleged false implication. In defence, one witness, Wisakha Singh, was examined as D. W. 1.

2. The trial Court held that one independent witness Dr. R. S. Agnihotri had been joined as required under Section 10 (7) of the Act, and that there was no material discrepancy between the statement of this witness and that of the Food Inspector. It was, however, held that Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the Rules), were mandatory which had not been complied with inasmuch as it was not proved as to by which means the container of the sample was sent by the office of the Chief Medical Officer and that the specimen impression of the seal as well as the memorandum were not proved to have been sent separately. The contention of the Food Inspector that the report of the Public Analyst disclosing that the memo, and the impression of the seal had been received separately was sufficient compliance of the Rules was repelled. On account of non-compliance of these two mandatory rules, the accused-respondent was acquitted.

3. The learned counsel for the State has challenged the acquittal and has contended that Rules 17 and 18 were not mandatory in character and their non-compliance cannot give rise to the presumption invariably that the accused had been prejudiced and that the report of the Public Analyst was sufficient to show that the duty cast on the prosecution to prove the compliance of the Rules had been discharged.

4. Rules 17 and 18 specifically provide the mode and the manner of sending the container of the samples and the impression of the seal which is used for sealing the samples, to the Public Analyst. According to Rule 17, the container of a sample for analysis is to be sent to the Public Analyst by registered post or railway parcel or air freight or by hand in a sealed packet. The memorandum in Form VII is also to be sent in the same packet in an outer cover. Rule 18 provides that the impression of the seal which is used for the purpose of sealing the sample along with the memorandum as prescribed has to be sent to the public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him. The intent and purpose of the specific direction in Rule 18, that the impression o