M.M. Punchhi, J.(Oral) - (1.) Some of the undisputed facts are, that the petitioner was found having displayed for sale chilly powder and samples therefrom had been purchased by the Food Inspector on 27-10-1978. On 2-11-1978 one sealed container of one part of the sample accompanied by memorandum in Form-VII put in a sealed packet was sent to the Public Analyst. The other sealed containers of the remaining two parts of the sample and two copies of memoranda in Form-VII were sent to the Local Health Authority on the same date. On these undisputed facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the conviction contending that there is infraction of rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, as amended with effect from 4-1-1977. The amended rule reads as follows : "17. MANNER OF DESPATCHING CONTAINERS OF SAMPLES :The containers of the samples shall be despatched in the following manner, namely : (a) The sealed container of one part of the sample for analysis and a memorandum in Form-VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Public Analyst immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means. (b) The sealed containers of the remaining two parts of the sample and two copies of the memoranda in Form-VII shall be sent in a sealed packet to the Local (Health) Authority immediately but not later than the succeeding working day by any suitable means :
(2.) The mandate of the rule is clear that the samples must be despatched immediately to the concerned quarters and in any case not later than the succeeding working day. In other words, the law enjoins in the negative that no sample can be sent to the Public Analyst or to the Local Health Authority at a time beyond the next succeeding working day if the Food Inspector has failed to despatch it immediately after taking of the sample. Obviously, here there is a clear five-day gap in between. It is nobody's case that the intervening days were not working days. Such a big gap has explanation and non other than what is conceived of by the rules could be taken into account. Obviously, on the breach of the rule, the result of the Public Analyst can be of no avail to the prosecution towards maintenance of the conviction of the petitioner. He is thus entitled to his acquittal, which is hereby ordered.
(3.) For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Petition allowed.;