JUDGMENT - P.B. SAWANT, J.:---This is the accuseds appeal against his conviction and sentence for an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. According to the prosecution on 25-11-1971, samples of two articles of food-grains viz. Math Dal and Owa were collected from the shop of the accused by the complainant Food Inspector Kirtane (P.W. No. 1). The samples were sent to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst received showed that both the articles were adulterated within the meaning of the said Act and therefore 0prosecution was launched against the accused. On behalf of the prosecution, the complainant Food Inspector Kirtane (P.W. No. 1), his companion Drug Inspector Nayak (P.W. No. 3) and panch Bharat Merchant (P.W. No. 2) who was the Panch for the Panchanama of the collection of the sample. 3. The defence, among other things, was that both the articles were purchased by the accused from whole-sellers on the previous day and therefore the defence examined one Kantilal Shah from whom the Math Dal was purchased by the accused and Dhanjibhai Shah from whom that Owa was purchased. The accused also examined himself under section 342-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Various points of defence were raised before the lower Court including the contention that there was no compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rules 17 and 18 read with Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 made under the said Act. The learned Magistrate negatived all the defence contentions, and accepting the prosecution evidence convicted the accused as above and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for three months more. It is against the said order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Mr. Ganatra who appears for the appellant-accused, raised a number of contentions. It is not necessary for me to deal with all the said contentions, since I am of the view that the accused is entitled to succeed on his first contention viz. 4. Mr. Ganatra who appears for the appellant-accused, raised a number of contentions. It is not necessary for me to deal with all the said contentions, since I am of the view that the accused is entitled to succeed on his first contention viz. that in as much as there was no compliance with Rules 17 ad 18 read with Rule 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules made under the said Act, the prosecution has not established beyond doubt the identity of the samples collected from the accused and that analysed by the Public Analyst. Rule 7 of the said Rules lays down the duties of the Public Analyst. It provides, among other things, that on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector, the Public Analyst shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately, and shall note the condition of the seals there on. In order to ensure that it is the collected sample and nothing else which is sent to the Public Analyst, Rules 17 and 19 prescribe a procedure for forwarding the samples collected by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. Rule 17 states that the container of sample for analysis shall be sent to the Public Analyst by registered post and railway parcel or air freight or by hand or by any other suitable means of transport available, in a sealed packet which will be enclosed, together with a memorandum in Form VII in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst. Rule 18 then lays down that a copy of the memorandum sent along with the sealed packet and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the said packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. Rules 14, 15 and 6 lay down the manner in which the samples and the containers will be sealed and labelled. The safeguard contained in Rule 17 that the sealed packet containing the samples should be accompanied by a memorandum in Form VII enclosed in an outer cover is to ensure among other things that the contents of the sealed packets viz. The safeguard contained in Rule 17 that the sealed packet containing the samples should be accompanied by a memorandum in Form VII enclosed in an outer cover is to ensure among other things that the contents of the sealed packets viz. the nature of the articles submitted for analysis, its serial number, the nature and quantity of preservatives, the name of the sender, the name of the vendor from whom the samples were collected and the date and place of collection tally and show that the sealed packet relates to the sample that is collected from a particular person on a particular date. Without the accompaniment of such a memorandum, it is not possible to identify the contents of the sealed packet. Equally important and perhaps more is the safeguard contained in Rule 18 viz. that the Public Analysis sent separately a copy of the memorandum which accompanied the sealed packet and also the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet containing the sample which is sent to the Public Analyst. The Legislature desired that it should be sent separately from the sealed packet containing the samples as provided in Rule 17. This is to ensure that no third party tampers with the samples of the food articles sent, while in transit. In the absence of the prosecution evidence to show that there was compliance of the provisions of the said Rules 17 and 18, it is not possible to hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the samples collected and that which was ultimately analysed by the Public Analyst. Taking into consideration the purpose for which these rules have been made and the importance of compliance with them, for bringing home the offence under the Act, it has been held in various decisions that the said provisions contained in Rule 18 in particular is mandatory. A Single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in (Laxmandas Sarvottamdas Doshi Co. v The State of Maharashtra)1, 77 Bom.L.R. 408, had an occasion to deal with this question and in that decision the learned Judge has held that the provision of Rule 18 are mandatory, the non-compliance of which renders the prosecution nugatory. In the present case, there is no evidence led whatsoever by the prosecution that the provisions of either Rule 17 or Rule 18 were at all complied with. In the present case, there is no evidence led whatsoever by the prosecution that the provisions of either Rule 17 or Rule 18 were at all complied with. The only evidence which the prosecution has chosen to lead on this point is that of the complainant Food Inspector who has merely deposed as follows :--- "Memos in Form No. 7 were sent to Analyst. Two memos Exs. H. I. Specimen impression of the seal was sent to the Analyst. On 29-11-71 a message was received from Analyst on phone that sample of owa showed presence or living larvac." There is no other evidence on the point. It will thus be obvious from the aforesaid oryptic statement made by the Food Inspector that he does not say whether he had sent the memorandum in Form No. VII to the Analyst along with the sealed packet or separately. Further he has also not stated as to whether a copy of the memorandum in Form No. VII was at all sent and if sent, whether the same was sent along with the specimen impression of the seal which was used to seal the sample packet. Thirdly, there is also no enlightenment from the evidence on the point as to whether a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was sent separately to the Public Analyst or was sent along with or together with the sealed packet of the sample. The prosecution evidence is sweetly silent on the said important points. Mr. Wale appearing for the State while conceding this state of the prosecution evidence has urged that additional evidence may be taken on the point either in this Court or the matter may be remanded for the said evidence to the trial Court. If this request made by Mr. Wale is accorded to, it will only mean in the circumstances of the case that the prosecution will get an opportunity to fill in the loopholes in their evidence. If other necessary material bearing on the point, was on record I might have acceded to the said request for remand or might have myself recorded the additional evidence. Unfortunately, Mr. Wale, could not point out such material. It is therefore obvious that no useful purpose will be served by recording additional evidence in this case. If other necessary material bearing on the point, was on record I might have acceded to the said request for remand or might have myself recorded the additional evidence. Unfortunately, Mr. Wale, could not point out such material. It is therefore obvious that no useful purpose will be served by recording additional evidence in this case. I am therefore satisfied that for want of evidence on the said point, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sample collected from the accused was the same which was analysed by the Public Analyst. In the circumstances, the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt, and therefore to an acquittal of the offence with which he is charged. 5. In the result, on this point alone, I allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and acquit him of the charge under section (16)(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Fine, if any, paid by the accused to be refunded to him. Bail bond of the accused to be cancelled. ------