JUDGMENT : C.V. Rane, J. This judgment will govern the disposal of Criminal Revision Application No. 284 of 1974 and Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 716 of 1975 both of which arise out of the judgment dated 28th February 1974 of the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1973. The petitioner, Arjan Khima Jhaia, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has been convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Veraval of the offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for one month. According to the prosecution in the above case, the food inspector of Veraval-Patan Municipality saw the accused sitting with a pot of Ghee for sale in the Ghee market on 25-8-71. The food inspector purchased 450 gms, of gee for Rs. 6/-from the accused in the presence of panchas. The ghee was divided into three equal parts each of which was put in a separate bottle which was sealed and labelled in the presence of the panchas. One bottle was handed over to the accused and one bottle was sent to the public analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Bhuj for analysis and the third bottle was retained by the food inspector with him. The public analyst found that the sample of ghee that was sent to him was adulterated. On the basis of his report, the food inspector filed a complaint for the offence in question against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate convicted him of the offence in question and sentenced him as stated above. The appeal preferred by the accused has also been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and being aggrieved by his judgment, he has come in revision to this court. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 716 of 1975 relates to the notice issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the food inspector has not complied with rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'Rules'). Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 716 of 1975 relates to the notice issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. 2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the food inspector has not complied with rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, 'Rules'). According to rule 17 - "The container of sample for analysis shall be sent to the public analyst by registered post or railway parcel or air freight, or by hand or by any other suitable means of transport available, in a sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in form VII in an outer cover addressed to the public analyst : Provided that in the case of a sample of food which has been taken from Agmark sealed container, the memorandum inform VII shall bear the following additional information,: - (i) Grade. (ii) Agmark label No./Batch No. (iii) Name of packing station." Paragraph 2 of form Vll referred to in rule 17 reads as under : - "A copy of this memo and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of sample is being sent separately by post/hand." Rule 18 of the Rules provides; - "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." According to Mr. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner, there is no evidence on record to show that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was sent to the public analyst separately as contemplated by rule 18. The food inspector who has been examined as P.W. 1 in the trial Court does not say a word, on the point. He does not say that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal have been sent separately by him to the public analyst. Both the courts below relying on a copy of letter dated 1st September 1971 addressed by the food inspector to the Chief Chemist, Bhuj and the report of the public analyst, have taken the view that the food inspector had complied with the provisions of rule 18 (vide exs. 14 and 15). Both the courts below relying on a copy of letter dated 1st September 1971 addressed by the food inspector to the Chief Chemist, Bhuj and the report of the public analyst, have taken the view that the food inspector had complied with the provisions of rule 18 (vide exs. 14 and 15). The food inspector has not stated in his above letter ex. 14 that a specimen impression of the seal has been sent separately by him to the public analyst. It appears from the above letter that samples of articles of food purchased from five different persons were sent to the public analyst and memorandum Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 relate to those samples. There is no reference to the specimen impression of the seals affixed on the samples in the above letter. The learned Sessions Judge has interpreted the above letter to mean that, according to the food inspector, a separate memorandum No. 31 in respect of the sample of ghee was also sent by him to the public analyst But there is no documentary evidence on record to show that any separate memorandum containing the impression of the seal was sent to the public analyst. The public analyst has referred to the sample in question as sample No. 31 in his report, ex. 15. If the food inspector had sent a specimen impression of the seal separately, nothing was easier for him than to produce the office copy of the letter with which it was sent. But he has not done so. Merely on the basis of ex. 14, it cannot be said that the food inspector has complied with the provisions of rule 18 especially when, according to rule 17, the sample is required to be sent to the public analyst in form VII paragraph 2 of which has already been reproduced above. The above form seems to have been prescribed in order to ensure that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of sample were separately sent as contemplated by rule 18. The food inspector has, however, not used the above form while forwarding the sample to the public analyst. The above form seems to have been prescribed in order to ensure that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of sample were separately sent as contemplated by rule 18. The food inspector has, however, not used the above form while forwarding the sample to the public analyst. It is true that in the printed report of the public analyst, amongst other things, it is stated - "Seal affixed on the container of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the food inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis." Compliance with the provisions of rule 18 being mandatory, it was necessary for the prosecution to produce satisfactory evidence on record to show that those provisions were complied with. But as observed above, the food inspector has not produced any such evidence on record. Under these circumstances, it would rather be hazardous to hold, merely on the basis of the above statement in the report of the public analyst, that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent to him. The courts below do not seem to have considered the above aspect of the case while deciding the question whether rule 18 of the Rules was complied with by the food inspector. 3. Now, as held by this Court in the cases of State of Gujarat v. Shantaben wife of Bhol Dhulabhal, AIR 1964 Guj 136 and Gela Hira Rabari v. S.V. Pandya and another AIR 1970 Guj. 235 : 1973 F.A.C. 297) rules 7 and 18 are mandatory and non-compliance with them affects evidentiary value of the report of the public analyst and the conviction solely based upon it cannot be sustained. The accused has been convicted mainly on the basis of the report of the public analyst and hence, for the reasons already mentioned, his conviction for the offence cannot on sustained. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for respondent No. I are unable to show as to how his conviction for the offence under the Act can be maintained. As the accused is acquitted of the offence in question, miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7.6 of 1975 does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly. 4. In the result, the revision application is allowed. As the accused is acquitted of the offence in question, miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7.6 of 1975 does not survive and it is disposed of accordingly. 4. In the result, the revision application is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act. Fine, if paid, should be refunded to him. Revision application allowed.