JUDGMENT
S.C. Pratap, J.
1. Order a acquittal dated 6th August, 1977, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nandurbar, in Criminal Case No. 1721 of 1973 is challenged in this appeal therefrom by the State.
2. The original prosecution was one under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The article in question was Kardai oil, sample whereof was taken on 19th April, 1973. After completing the formalities and the requirements in that behalf and after receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the instant prosecution was launched against the accused persons. On consideration of the evidence on record and holding that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused were storing for sale and sold adulterated Karda oil, the learned Magistrate rendered an order of acquittal in favour of the accused persons. Hence the present appeal therefrom.
3. Mr. V.V. Kamat, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State very vehemently attacked the reasoning and the conclusions of the learned trial Magistrate on the compliance by the food inspector of the provisions of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. Now it has been settled by series of decisions of this Court that these Rules particularly Rule 17 in mandatory, non-compliance whereof would be fatal to the prosecution. These decisions relate to the provisions of the Act and the Rules aforesaid prior to the coming into force of the Amending Act 34 of 1976. The present is a case covered by the unamended Act and unamended Rules. These circumstances, the ratio of series of decisions of this Court on the mandatory nature of the aforesaid Rules would become applicable to this case.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that though that is the legal position on the nature and character of the aforesaid Rules, the evidence in the present case regarding compliance of the said Rules has been totally mis-construed by the learned trial Magistrate. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there was sufficient evidence in the present case to show that the provisions of the requirements of the aforesaid Rules were complied in the present case. I have taken through the evidence of the food inspector in that behalf. It must be said that considerable part of the comment of the learned Magistrate on the evidence of the food inspector does not appear to be justified. Going through the evidence of the food inspector, it would be seen that the food inspector did take care to comply with the requirements of law while taking the samples and while completing the other formalities till the time of launching of the prosecution.
5. However, even if I were to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that there is in this case compliance or at least in any event, substantial compliance with the aforesaid Rules, the prosecution must nevertheless fail on two other aspects. Firstly, the report of the Public Analyst cannot, in this case, carry conviction relating to the adulteration or the alleged nature of the adulteration of the article in question. Rule 44(e) of the Rules in question. undoubtedly lays down that sale of a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil is prohibited. But the second proviso to Rule 44 makes an exception to some extent in the aforesaid behalf. The said proviso runs as follows :
“Provided further that in respect of Clause (e) a maximum tolerance of 5.0 red units in Ice. m. cell on Lovibond scale is permitted when the oil is tested for Boudouin test without dilution, that is to say, by shaking vigorously for two minutes, 5 ml. of the sample with 5 ml. or hydrochloric acid (specific gravity 1.19) 0.5 ml. of 2 per cent alcoholic solution of furfural, and allowing to stand for 5 minutes.”
6. Now when we turn to the report of the Public Analyst, the whole picture is as vague as anything. No particular are given as to how the conclusion is reached that the article in question was adulterated. The learned Public Prosecutor is undoubtedly right that report of the Public Analyst is conclusive but in order to make it conclusive, it must contain at least the essential particulars on the nature of adulteration. In the present case all that the report of the Public Analyst says is that the article was adulterated. What was the adulteration is not mentioned. What was the deficiency or excess is also not mentioned. Whether the proviso to Rule 44 was taken into consideration while analysing the article is not clear. In these circumstances. It would, in my view, be unsafe to rely upon the Public Analyst’s report in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Yet another ground on which the prosecution must fail is non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 9(j). Under the said Rule, copy of the report of the Public Analyst is to be supplied to the person from whom sample was obtained within 10 days of the receipt of the said report. In this case sample was obtained by the complainant on 19th April, 1973, report of the Public Analyst was received by the complainant on 26th June, 1973 but its copy was given to the accused persons nearly six months thereafter 17th December, 1973. Now even assuming that substantial compliance with Rule 9(j) would be sufficient, even that is absent in the present case. When a period of 10 days is prescribed by law for doing a particular thing, if the prosecution takes as many as six months to do the said thing, it can by no stretch be said that this is substantial compliance with the legal requirement. The gross delay in sending copy of the public analyst’s report to the accused persons is not explained.
8. All in all, therefore, though for somewhat different reasons, the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused persons by the learned trial Magistrate will have to be confirmed. This appeal challenging the said acquittal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.
9. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.