ORDER
Arun Kumar Goel, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case.
2. In the present case the sample of Shakkar (Jaggery) from the premises of respondent No. 1 on 31-12-1987 by Kanwar Prem Food Inspector of the local area of Hamirpur. After completing the coda formalities of disclosing his identity and intention to take sample of ‘Shakkar’ and on payment of Rs. 2.40 Ps. 600 gms. of Shakkar was purchased by the Food Inspector in presence of Bachiter Singh from respondent No. 1. The same was divided in 3 equal parts, put into 3 separate neat, clean and dry bottles, thereafter those bottles were properly packed, sealed and then one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. After analysis, the Public Analyst, Central Testing laboratory, Kandaghat vide his report contained in Ex. PE opined that the sample contained orange coal tar dye, addition whereof is prohibited in an article of food and it is injurious to health. On this basis, Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur gave sanction to prosecute the respondent vide sanction letter Ex. PF.
3. Complaint was filed in the trial Court, who after examining the witnesses and recording the statement of respondent under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has acquitted both the respondents. It is this acquittal which is assailed by the State in the present appeal.
4. The respondents were acquitted on two counts namely, for want of proper sanction as well as on account of non-compliance of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). For the purposes of present appeal, the learned counsel for respondents has urged that without conceding even if it be assumed that the acquittal on the point of sanction is bad in law, it is unassailable on account of non-compliance of Rule 18 of the Rules.
5. Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, has urged that the sample in question was sent along with impression of seal thereof. He has further urged that Form No. VII along with impression of the seal, with which the sample had been sealed, was also sent separately as well in the present case, and the Court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents. These submissions have been stoutly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who has further urged that the acquittal of the respondents on both counts as recorded by the trial Court deserves to be upheld.
6. At this stage in order to properly appreciate the respective submissions, Rule 18 of the Rules is reproduced which is to the following effect:
18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately. — A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in the sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day.
The purpose of enacting this rule is clear and manifest. By making the aforesaid provision in the Rule, the rule making authority wanted to ensure that there is proper identity of sample connecting the same and it assumes significance when a person is to be prosecuted on the sample being found adulterated under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
7. In the present case it has come in evidence of P.W. 1 Prem Kanwar, Food Inspector that one copy of memo VII along with sample of specimen impression of seal was sent separately by registered post. There is nothing on record to show that in fact, it was sent except the bald statement of respondent and best evidence in this behalf was the postal receipt whereby the sample was sent by registered post. In the absence of postal receipt it would neither be proper nor safe to accept the version of P.W. 1 regarding the despatch of Form No. VII along with specimen impression of the seal separately. In these circumstances it can safely be held that there is non-compliance of Rule 18 which further effects the identity of sample that was examined and that was stated to have been found adulterated as per report of the Public Analyst vide Ex. PE. In case any authority on this question is required, a reference can be usefully made to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1988) 2 FAC 156, State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran
8. No other evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant to show that Form No. VII along with sample impression of seal was ever sent to the Public Analyst separately and in the face of this position, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court on this ground deserves to be upheld.
9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.