JUDGMENT : A.D. Desai, J. Kantaben Champaklal, the petitioner-Original accused, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under sections 16(l)(a)(i) r. w. section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. S.I. for three months. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the order of conviction was confirmed, but the order of sentence was modified by substituting three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. one month's R. I. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed this revision application. 3. To state shortly the facts are that, on the death of the petitioner's husband, she continued the business of her husband of selling milk. On July 2, 1976, Mr. D.V. Mistri the Food Inspector, purchased from the milk shop of the petitioner cow's milk at about 9-45 A.M. for the purpose of analysis. The quantity of milk purchased was divided into three parts and placed in three bottles which were sealed in the presence of the panch. One of the bottle sealed was later handed over by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst with a memorandum for analysis. The Food Inspector delivered to the Public Analyst at the same time another packet containing a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal. The report of the Public Analyst showed that the fat contents were 3.4% and that under the rules the prescribed quantity should have been 3.5%. Thus, there was deficiency of 1% and the cow milk was sub-standard to that extent. There was no deficiency with regard to the rest of the contents. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the accused, which resulted in her conviction as aforesaid. 4. The Revision Application came for hearing before a Single Judge of this Court. It was argued before the learned Judge that Rule 18 had been violated inasmuch as the packet containing a copy of memorandum and specimen impression with the seal was delivered to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector who himself had delivered the packet containing the sample of analysis to the Public Analyst together with the memorandum. It was argued before the learned Judge that Rule 18 had been violated inasmuch as the packet containing a copy of memorandum and specimen impression with the seal was delivered to the Public Analyst by the Food Inspector who himself had delivered the packet containing the sample of analysis to the Public Analyst together with the memorandum. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that as the packet containing the sample for analysis and the memorandum as well as the packet containing the impression of the seal along with the memorandum were delivered by one and the same person, the protection of Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') had been lost. The provisions of Rule 18 are mandatory and have been enacted to safeguard the accused as the certificate of the Public Analyst given after analysis has to be regarded as a proof of the contents thereof. The Food Inspector is an interested party who is likely to interfere with the seal and in order to avoid such a situation the legislature enacted Rule 18. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment of Mr. Justice A. M. Ahmedi delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 85of 1977 decided on April 29, 1977 (1977 F.A.J. 399). The learned Single Judge referred this Criminal Revision Application to the Division Bench as in his opinion the view taken by Mr. Justice A. M. Ahmadi in the aforesaid case required reconsideration. 5. Justice A. M. Ahmedi delivered in Criminal Revision Application No. 85of 1977 decided on April 29, 1977 (1977 F.A.J. 399). The learned Single Judge referred this Criminal Revision Application to the Division Bench as in his opinion the view taken by Mr. Justice A. M. Ahmadi in the aforesaid case required reconsideration. 5. Now, section 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), so far as relevant, provides that when a Food Inspector takes a sample of an article of food for the purpose of analysis, he shall, except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed, provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the Food Inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impression, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person. The Food Inspector is required to send one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority. 6. Rule 16 of the Rules provides the manner of packing and sealing the samples According to the rule, all samples of food sent for analysis shall be packed fastened and sealed in the manner, namely, (a) the stopper shall first be securely fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit; (b) the bottle, jar or other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper shall be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive ; and (c) the paper cover shall be further secured by means of strong twine or thread both above and across the bottle, jar or other container, and the twine or thread shall then be fastened on the paper cover by means of sealing wax on which there shall be at least four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender, of which one shall be at the top of the packet, one at the bottom and the other two on the body of the packet. The knots of the twine or thread shall be covered by means of sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender. Under Rule 17 the container of sample has to 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. There is a proviso with which we are not concerned. Under Rule 18 a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet have to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. Under Rule 7 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 condition of the seals thereon. The Public Analyst shall case to be analysed such samples of food as may be sent to him by food inspector or by any other person under the Act, and after the analysis has been completed he has to send to the person concerned two copies of the report of result of such analysis in form III within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the sample. 7. 7. The question to be considered is whether rule 18 can be said to have been violated if the memorandum with the impression of the seal is sent through the same person who carried the food sample under rule 17 of the Rules. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that if rules 17 and 18 are read together the intention of the legislature was that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet have to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. The stress was laid upon the word `separately' and it was contended that the person who delivers the container of sample for analysis in a sealed packet enclosed together with a memorandum is prohibited from delivering to the Public Analyst a copy of memorandum and specimen of impression of the seal as per provision of Rule 18. It was contended there was a special purpose of enacting Rule 18 and the purpose was to avoid any tampering because the fate of the accused depended upon the certificate issued by the Public Analyst. Further argument was that a copy of the impression of seal must be sent separately so that the Public Analyst has the opportunity to compare the seal on the original paper with the specimen impression. Reliance was also sought to be placed on the decision of this Court in 'Shriram Harichand v. State of Gujarat, 1976 F.A.J. 64. The Court in that case was interpreting Rule 4 and sub-rule (1) thereof, which provides that samples of Food for analysis whether under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act or under clause (a) of Rule 3 shall be sent either through a messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet enclosed together with a memorandum in an outer cover addressed to the Director. Sub rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that a copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and cover shall be sent separately by registered post to the Director. Sub rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that a copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and cover shall be sent separately by registered post to the Director. The facts of that case are that the Court had sent the sealed container of a sample for analysis together with the original memorandum and a copy of the memorandum with the specimen impression of seal in one packet and thus, it was contended that, there was controversion of Rule 4 of the rules as the same was mandatory. The Court held that Rule 4 was mandatory and to be complied with strictly. The Court took notice of the provision of law which makes the report of the Director final and conclusive and came to the conclusion that as the sample together with memorandum and a copy of memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were sent in the same packet, the provisions of Rule 4 were contravened. The reason for taking this view was that the rule was enacted to safeguard the interest of of the accused and to see that the sample reached the Director without any tampering. The packet containing the sample and the packet containing the impression of the seal should be sent separately so that the Director could compare the seals and any tampering could thus be avoided. The observations made in the judgment must be read in the light of the facts of the case and the law prevalent at the time and need not be stretched any further. Sections 11 and 13 have been materially amended by Act. No. 34 of 1976 and the effect of the amendment requires to be considered. Moreover the Court in that case had not to be decided whether the messenger who carried the packet containing the sample and the packet containing the impression of seal must be the same as argued in the case. In the present case, there is no dispute that both the packets have been delivered by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. The question is whether this procedure has violated Rule 18. 8. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was amended by the Act No. 34 of 1976 which came into force from 17th February 1976. By this amending Act Sections 11 and 13 have been substantially amended. The question is whether this procedure has violated Rule 18. 8. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was amended by the Act No. 34 of 1976 which came into force from 17th February 1976. By this amending Act Sections 11 and 13 have been substantially amended. Relevant part of section 11 now provides that when a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis he shall, except in special cases provided by rules under this Act, divide the sample then and there into three parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed, provided that where such person refuses to sing or put his thumb impression the food inspector shall call upon one or more witnesses and take his or their signatures or thumb impressions, as the case may be, in lieu of the signature or thumb impression of such person. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 provides that when a sample of any article of food or adulterant is taken under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 10, the food Inspector shall, on the immediately succeeding working day, send a sample of the article of food or adulterant or both, as the case may be, in accordance with the rules prescribed for sampling to the public analyst for the local area concerned. These provisions require the Food Inspector to take the signature of the accused on the sample and if he refuses to sign or put his thumb impression the Food Inspector shall take the signature of one or more witnesses. It is also incumbent upon the Food Inspector to send the sample to the Public Analyst by the immediately succeeding working day after the sample is taken. The other two samples are to be lodged with the local (Health) Authority and the accused can make an application under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act to the Court for calling one of the samples from the Local Health Authority and to send the same to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory whose certificate shall be deemed to be final. Under Rule 18 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. This Rule can be divided into two parts. The first part requires that a copy of Memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the public analyst separately. The latter part provides for the manner in which the said copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal should be sent. The provisions of rule 18 in so far as they provide for the manner of delivery, that is to say, be registered post or in any other manner so that the contents would be delivered to the Public Analyst or to any person authorised by him cannot be said to be mandatory, But so far as the first part is concerned, which relates to the sending of the memorandum separately, the same is of a mandatory character. The word `Separately' had been a matter of much arguments. The word `separate, in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary is given the meaning "to set or to keep apart" ; not shared with another" ; "in a separate manner" ; "individually", "independently". Rule 17 refers to the sealed packet of the sample together with a memorandum. Rule 18 provides for a copy of the memorandum to be sent separately. Reading Rules 17 and 18 together, it is clear that the word `separately' used in Rule 18 has been intended to convey the sense that the specimen of the memorandum and the impression of the seal has to be sent independently of the articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17. As long as the copy of the memorandum that is required to be sent under Rule 18 is not sent together, in the sense that all that articles are not sent in (he same packet or same cover as the articles referred to in rule 17 and the memorandum which is required to be sent under Rule 18 is sent independently in a different cover, notwithstanding the fact that both are taken to the Analyst by the same person, they must be said to have been sent independently of each other. The manner of taking two packets by the same individual cannot be said to contravene the provisions of Rule 18. The object of Rule 18 is to furnish an independent means of checking the identity of the seal on the sealed packet of the sample to be analysed. Sub-rule (1) of rule 7 requires the public analyst or an officer authorised by him to compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received separately by him and to note the condition of the seals thereon. The seal on the outer cover of the food packet can only be compared if a specimen impression of the seal has been separately sent to him either by registered post or through a messenger or has been delivered to him in any other manner. If a specimen impression of the seal is enclosed by the Food Inspector in the packet itself, then unless the outer seal is broken and the specimen impression of the seal is brought out, the public analyst will not be able to compare the seal on the outer cover with the specimen impression of the seal. But if he breaks the seal on the outer cover in order to compare the specimen impression of the seal, he would not be able to compare the seal on the outer cover with the specimen impression of the seal because for taking out the impression of the seal from the packet he must have damaged or destroyed the seal on the outer cover. It must be noted that Rules 17 and 18 provide for sending of the packets containing the sample and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet by registered post also. The Food Inspector, therefore, can himself send both the aforesaid packets separately by registered post. There is nothing in the provisions to indicate that he cannot do so and Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, was not able to reply as to why the Food Inspector cannot do so. That being is so, there is no reason why the Food Inspector cannot deliver both the packets to the Public Analyst for analysis. The main intention of the legislature in enacting Rules 7, 17 and 18 is to establish the identity of the sample and the provisions have been enacted to carry out that intention. That being is so, there is no reason why the Food Inspector cannot deliver both the packets to the Public Analyst for analysis. The main intention of the legislature in enacting Rules 7, 17 and 18 is to establish the identity of the sample and the provisions have been enacted to carry out that intention. The Food Inspector is a Public Officer and the presumption in law is that he will discharge his duties honestly. The provisions have been enacted to keep a check as to how a Food Inspector should act after taking the sample for analysis and to avoid any tampering with the sample. The Food Inspector has not to take the remaining samples but has to send the same to the Local Health Authority. The Food Inspector is required to send the sample for analysis by the immediately succeeding working day of the day when he takes the sample. The provisions have also been enacted that the Food Inspector should take on three samples the signature or the thumb impression of the person from whom he has taken the sample and if such person so refuses to sing or to put his thumb impression, the signature or thumb impression of the witnesses should be taken. The Legislature, has now enacted the said provisions to avoid tampering with the samples taken for analysis. It is in this light that we have to read the provisions of Rule 18. The Legislature has sufficiently protected the accused and it cannot be said that the aforesaid protections are illusory. If the packets referred to in Rules 17 and 18 are sent by the same messenger, there is no scope of tampering, in view of provisions now enacted by the legislature. As already observed the decision in Shriram Hirachand (supra) was given at the time when Section 11 was not amended by Act. No. 34 of 1976 and as pointed out earlier the amendment has made material changes in Section 11 of the Act. The observations, therefore, made in the aforesaid case cannot now be of much assistance and have to be limited to the facts of the case and the law as prevailing at the time. No. 34 of 1976 and as pointed out earlier the amendment has made material changes in Section 11 of the Act. The observations, therefore, made in the aforesaid case cannot now be of much assistance and have to be limited to the facts of the case and the law as prevailing at the time. The Bombay High Court has taken the same view, as we have taken, (Enayet Ali Nazar Ali Bhori v. The State of Maharashtra), 1976 F.A.J. 376 of the provisions of Rule 18 and particularly the word ‘separate'. For the aforesaid reasons, the decision given by Justice Mr. A.M. Ahmadi in Criminal Revision Application No. 85 of 1977 reported in 1977 F.A.J. 399 is no longer a good law. 9. In the present case there is no disputed that the cow's milk sample taken from the petitioner was found to be deficient in fat to the extent of 1%. The deficiency in fat is small. The petitioner is aged 46 and has got 3 minor children. There is no other member in the family to look after the minors and the petitioner is the only person who looks after them and earns for them. The law provides minimum sentence and the Court has to impose the same. In appeal the minimum sentence has been imposed and the petitioner is required to undergo the minimum sentence. But looking to the peculiar facts of this case, the Government may consider the question of computation of sentence of the petitioner. 10. The result is that the Revision Application is rejected. The accused to surrender to bail within a period of two months from to-day. Orders accordingly. Revision application dismissed.