Judgment 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sec.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for having sold or stored for sale adulterated black pepper (Kali Mirch). The trial Court had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months more but, in appeal, the sentence has been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500, or, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month more. 2. It appears that, on the 31st January, 1963, the Health Officer of Motihari Municipality (P.W. 1) purchased a sample of black pepper from the grocery shop of the petitioner situated in Mohalla Meena Bazar; and, after observing the requisite formalities, he forwarded one packet of the article in sealed cover to the Public Analyst at Patna. The report of the Public Analyst was to the effect that the sample of the black pepper was adulterated. Accordingly, with the sanction of the Chairman of the Municipality, the present prosecution was instituted against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner put forward a defence that he had been falsely implicated by the Health Officer (P.W. 1), who was inimically disposed towards him and who had really not taken the sample of black pepper from his shop. 4. The defence was negatived by both the Courts below. The Courts below have accepted the prosecution case and have convicted the petitioner in the manner already indicated. 5. Two contentions were put forward on behalf of the petitioner in this Court. The first contention of the learned Counsel is that there is no evidence in this case at all to the effect that rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") was complied with by the Health Officer (P.W. 1) and/or that the Public Analyst had performed the duty joined upon him under sub-rule (1) of R.7 of the Rules. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, the relevant rules may be quoted. Rule 18 is in the following terms :- "18. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, the relevant rules may be quoted. Rule 18 is in the following terms :- "18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately :- A copy of the memorandum and a 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." The relevant portion of R.7 is in the following terms :- "7. Duties of a public analyst - (1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the contention of the seals thereon." Having regard to the point thus put forward on behalf of the petitioner, I have looked into the evidence of P.W. 1 and I find that he had definitely not complied with Rule 18. In substance, the evidence of P.W. 1 is that in respect of this particular matter he had prepared four copies of what he described a "paper". One each of those copies was put by him in each of the three packets of the black pepper, evidently as contemplated by Sec.11 of the Act. The fourth copy of the said memorandum was retained by him in his possession, and it was produced from his custody in Court and marked Ext. 5. This evidence of P.W. 1 leaves no room for doubt that he had not complied with Rule 18. He has nowhere said that he had forwarded a specimen impression of the seal which he had used for the purpose of sealing the packet forwarded to the Public Analyst, either separately by registered post or by any messenger or otherwise. The specimen impression of the seal would have to be sent along with a copy of the memorandum in form VII. But, since the only other copy of the memorandum which P.W. 1 had prepared was still in his possession, the conclusion is irresistible that no copy of the said memorandum could possibly have accompanied any specimen impression of the seal for the purpose of being forwarded to the Public Analyst, as required by Rule 18. But, since the only other copy of the memorandum which P.W. 1 had prepared was still in his possession, the conclusion is irresistible that no copy of the said memorandum could possibly have accompanied any specimen impression of the seal for the purpose of being forwarded to the Public Analyst, as required by Rule 18. 6 If, as the evidence clearly shows, a specimen impression of the seal was not forwarded to the Public Analyst, as enjoined by Rule 18, then, there was nothing in the possession or at the disposal of the Public Analyst on the basis of which he could have performed the duty enjoined upon him under Rule 7(1) of comparing the seal on the packet which had been forwarded to him with the specimen impression of the seal which he could have received separately. Therefore, it is obvious that Rule 7 was not complied with in this case at all. 7. Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the report of the Public Analyst (Ext. 6) wherein it was mentioned that the sample of black pepper purchased from the shop of the petitioner for analysis was received "properly sealed and fastened" and that the Public Analyst had "found the seal intact and unbroken". Relying upon this report (Ext. 6), learned Counsel has argued that that the present case is covered by the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality V/s. Pandavalappil Kannan, AIR 1966 Ker 70 where reference was made to certain decisions of the Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts, and it was observed "none of those decisions are applicable to the facts of this case where the performance of the act of sampling, sealing and forwarding of the article by the Food Inspector as well as the act of ascertaining the seal to be intact by the Food Analyst are proved and the only presumption to be drawn is that those acts themselves were performed in accordance with the prescribed form and procedure, which fact itself was not challenged in the course of the enquiry". But the Kerala decision can be of no assistance in the present case in view of the positive indication in the evidence of P.W. 1, to which I have already referred, that there was nothing with which the Public Analyst could have performed the duty of comparing the seals on the packet of black pepper forwarded to him for analysis with the specimen impression thereof received separately. In Gopal Sao V/s. State of Bihar, 1968 BLJR 308, there was at least the evidence of the Sanitary Inspector of Aurangabad Notified Area Committee to the effect that he did send a memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet to the Public Analyst. Even then, this Court held that the presumption envisaged by Sec.114(e) of the Evidence Act could not be raised in favour of the prosecution. In the instant case, far from there being any evidence of the Health Officer (P.W. 1) that he had sent a memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst, there is clear indication on the record that neither the memorandum nor the specimen impression of the seal was made available to the Public Analyst to enable him to perform the duty enjoined upon him under Rule 7. It must, therefore, be held that there was total non-compliance of Rules 18 and 7(1) of the Rules in the present case. 8. It has been consistently held in this Court that non-compliance of the requirements of Rules 17 and 7 is a fatal defect in the prosecution case. Apart from Gopal Saos case, 1968 BLJR 308, to which I have already referred, the same view has been expressed by Anwar Ahmad, J. in Anand Mohan Choudhary V/s. State, Criminal Revn. No. 1868 of 1967, D/-21-8-1968 (Pat) and by B.P. Sinha, J. in Chhedi Sah V/s. State Criminal Revn. No. 945 of 1968, D/-6-12-1968 (Pat). Learned Counsel for the State contended that Rr. 18 and 7 of the Rules are merely directory; but the learned Counsel has not been able to bring to my notice any decision contrary to the decisions of this Court just referred to. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I must hold that the conviction recorded against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. 18 and 7 of the Rules are merely directory; but the learned Counsel has not been able to bring to my notice any decision contrary to the decisions of this Court just referred to. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I must hold that the conviction recorded against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. In this view, it is not necessary to go into the other question, relating to the validity and the proof of the sanction for the prosecution which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. 11. In the result, the conviction and the sentence are set aside and the rule is made absolute.