S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) The petitioner Dharmamal has preferred this revision against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 22nd June, 1974 by which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which further simple imprisonment for two months was maintained. The facts briefly stated are : On 27-11-1968 at about 9.30 A.M. Haridutt Kaushik, Food Inspector Municipal Board, Jalore purchased a sample of Til oil from the petitioner and divided the sample into three parts and sealed them, One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur for analysis. From the report of the Public Analyst dated 19-12-1968 this sample of Til oil was found adulterated.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case carefully. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure given under Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called as, the Rules) was not complied with. The compliance of this Rule was mandatory and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention.
(3.) I have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which appear to have great force. Rule 18 of the Rules 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 to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him.;