JUDGMENT : A.M. Ahmedi, J. This Revision Application is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira at Nadiad in Criminal Appeal No 148/76 whereby he confirmed the conviction of the applicants under section 2(1)(a) read with section 16(1)(A) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the Act) while reducing the sentence of applicant No. 1 Mohanlal Maganlal Sindhi to S.I. till the rising of the court and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for one month. Barring this modification in sentence of applicant No. 1, the appeal came to be dismissed and the applicants were directed to surrender to their bail. The applicants being aggrieved by this decision of the learned Sessions Judge have come in revision complaining that the mandatory rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules') were violated in the instant case and hence the conviction recorded by both the courts should not be sustained. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application are as under. 2. Opponent No. 2, Rumanlal Punjabkai Sharma, was serving as Food Inspector, Anand Nagarpalika on 15th July, 1975. On that date at about 4.00 P.M. he visited the shop run in the name and style of Mohan Bakery at Anand and collected samples of "Gopeni Goli" weighing about 600 gms. for Rs. 3/- and gave a written notice in that behalf to applicant No. 1, who was present at the shop slating that the purchase was for analysis by the Public Analyst. The samples were divided in three equal parts and were packed in empty clean and colourless bottles and were sealed as required by the Rules and the signatures of the panchas were obtained thereon. One sample bottle was given to applicant No. 1 and in token thereof a receipt was obtained. Out of the remaining two sample bottles, one was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis with a memorandum affixed thereon containing the impression of the seal and another memorandum was separately sent along with the impression of the seal to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst, Ex. 20, shows that the seal affixed on the container and 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. The report of the Public Analyst, Ex. 20, shows that the seal affixed on the container and 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. The result of the analysis indicated that the sample was substandard. On receipt of this report, opponent No. 2, after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Municipality, lodged the complaint against the present applicants. 3. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that the applicants were guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 2(1)(a) read with section 16(1)(A) of the Act and directed them to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Kaira at Nadiad, which appeal came to be dismissed except for the modification in the sentence indicated above. 4. Mr Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants, raised mainly one contention before me, namely, that in the instant case, rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Rules were violated and these rules being mandatory in nature, strict compliance was expected from the prosecution and hence the applicants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges for which they have been found guilty by both the courts below. In order to appreciate this contention, a perusal of the Rules becomes necessary. In order to appreciate this contention, a perusal of the Rules becomes necessary. Rule 16 entitled "Manner of Packing and sealing the samples" provides that all samples of food sent for analysis shall be packed, fastened and sealed in the following manners, 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 send or, of which one shall he 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, It is further provided that a seal or signature slip of the vendor may also be affixed on the sample if the vendor so desires, but it is left to the discretion of the vendor and cannot, therefore, be said to be forming part of the mandatory requirement of rule 16. Rule 17 next provides that 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. The proviso to this rule is not relevant and need not be stated. Rule 18 next provides that 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. It is clear on a reading of these Rules that the object of rule 16 is to ensure proper packing of the sample. It is clear on a reading of these Rules that the object of rule 16 is to ensure proper packing of the sample. Rule 18 has been enacted to ensure that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal are ‘separately' sent to the Analyst so that the comparison contemplated by rule 7 becomes meaningful. It would at this stage be relevant to refer to rule 7. It says that on receipt of the 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 the specimen impression received ‘separately' and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. It is, therefore, clear on a conjoint reading of rules and 18 that the rule-making authority wisely provided that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent ‘separately' to the Public Analyst so that any tampering with the sample sent for analysis becomes difficult. The safeguard provided in favour of the accused by the mandatory Rules particularly rule 18 of the Rules is to balance the advantage which the prosecution has received at the hands of the Legislature in so far as the report of the Public Analyst is concerned which is made admissible in evidence without the need to call the Public Analyst lo the witness box. The delicate balance would be tilted against the accused if the requirement of the rules 17 and 18 is not strictly complied with It is for this reason that rules 17 and 18 have been held to be mandatory. There is no dispute before me that these rules are mandatory and strict compliance thereof is expected from the prosecution. 5. The view that 1 take finds support from a Division Bench decision of this court in Harchand Gajpal v. State of Gujarat, 1976 (1) F.A.C. 15 where the court was concerned with the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of rule 4 of the Rules. The question posed was whether the provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 4, in so far as it stipulates that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent separately, is mandatory or directory. The question posed was whether the provision of sub-rule (3) of rule 4, in so far as it stipulates that a copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent separately, is mandatory or directory. Before I deal with this decision, it is necessary to read sub-rule (3) of rule 4 which provides that a copy of memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent separately by registered post to the Director. This rule has reference to sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. It is similar to rule 18, with which we are presently concerned. Mr. Mehta, the learned Advocate for the applicants, submitted that in the instant case, rule 18 had been violated because it is clear from the evidence of the complainant that the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet had not been ‘separately' sent to the Public Analyst but had been sent along with the packet containing the sample of food with the same bearer, namely, one Shri Rabari. In this behalf he invited my attention to the statement made by the complainant in his cross-examination to the effect that the memorandum was tied to the sample which was sent to the Public Analyst and another memorandum in a sealed cover was sent along with the sample with the peon. This statement made in cross-examination unmistakably indicates that the memorandum and the impression of the seal required to be sent under rule IX had been sent with the same peon, who carried the food sample, under rule 17. It was in this context that Mr. Mehta submitted that rule 8 had not been strictly complied with and the principal safeguard provided by the rule-making authority, namely, the comparison of the impression of the seal by the Public Analyst under rule 7, had been violated. 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 bearer who carries the food sample under rule 17 of the Rules. 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 bearer who carries the food sample under rule 17 of the Rules. Now the Division Bench which was concerned with the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of rule 4 of the Rules which is in pari materia with rule 18, came to the conclusion that the said sub rule, in so far as it provides that the specimen impression of the seal and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent separately, serves a special purpose for the accused because the fate of the accused depends upon the certificate issued by the Director, which is not open to challenge. It was, therefore, held that the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 4, in so far as they require that a specimen impression of seal used by the court to seal the container and the cover and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent separately to the Director, are mandatory and are required to be complied with strictly. It was observed in that case that the purpose of strict observance of the rule is to avoid any possible tampering with the food sample on its journey to the Central Food Laboratory. The relevant observations, which have a bearing on the question at issue, are as under :- "We have, therefore, three stages through which such a sample passes. It originates in the court which sends it, it travels from the place of its origin to the place of its delivery and before it is finally delivered to the Central Food Laboratory its journey ends at the post office which serves the Central Food Laboratory. Now, if any mischief or interference is committed at any of these three stages with the food packet, it will be difficult for the Director to discover it because whoever interferes with the seal on the container will also be able to interfere with the specimen impression of the seal enclosed therewith because both are available to him at one and the same time and they can be safely interfered with It may happen at the place where it originates or in the course of its journey or at the post office where its journey ends and which will deliver it to the Central Food Laboratory..................... That will not be the situation if the specimen impression of the seal has been sent separately either through a messenger or by registered post to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory because whoever interferes with the seal on the container will not have the specimen impression of the seal available to him for being interfered with since it must have been sent separately either through a messenger or by registered post. It is needless for us to add that whoever thinks of interfering with the seal on the container will also be able to successfully interfere with the seal on the outer cover. Now, the important and valuable safeguard which has been conferred upon the accused will be lost and will become illusory if the seal on the container and the specimen impression of the seal, both available at one and the same time, have been interfered with by some unscrupulous mischief-monger because the Director who is not available to the accused for cross-examination will not be able to know in such a situation whether the seal on the container has been interfered with or not. The requirement of separately sending the specimen impression of the seal to the Director is therefore intended to show him the genuine seal of the court with which he is required to compare the seal which the container bears. Since there is much less likelihood of any interference with the seal on the container and the specimen impression of the seal sent separately, there is a greater protection or safeguard which has been conferred upon the accused by sub-rule (3) of rule 4." 6. It is obvious from the above observations made by the Division Bench that the impression of the seal must be sent separately so that the Director has the opportunity to compare the seal on the original packet with the specimen impression in order to conclude that there has not been any tampering in transit. The same principle must apply when the court is considering the requirements of rule 18 of the Rules. The only difference is that instead of the court sending the food sample for examination, it is the Food Inspector who sends the samples for examination. The same principle must apply when the court is considering the requirements of rule 18 of the Rules. The only difference is that instead of the court sending the food sample for examination, it is the Food Inspector who sends the samples for examination. As in the case of court sending a sample for examination an impression of the seal of the court is required to be sent separately, so also by rule 8, the Food Inspector is required to send separately the impression of the seal on the packet so that the Public Analyst may be able to compare the two under rule 7 of the Rules. The underlying principle, therefore, in sub-rule (3) of rule 4 and rule 18 seems to be the same, namely, to afford protection to the accused because the certificate issued by the Director or the Public Analyst, as the case may be, is made admissible in evidence by virtue of section 13 of the Act. If, therefore, it is found on facts that both the food sample packet sent under rule 17 as well as the impression of the seal along with the memorandum sent under rule 18 were sent with the same messenger, there can be no doubt that the protection given to the accused is rendered illusory and mandatory requirement of rule 18 is breached. In the instant case, as pointed out earlier, it is obvious from the deposition of the complainant that both these were sent together with the same peon or messenger Shri Rabari. That messenger has not been examined. It is no doubt true, that in the instant case, the Public Analyst Shri I.M. Desai was examined as a witness on behalf of the prosecution and he stated that the contents of his report in form No. III under rule 7(3) of the Rules are correct. Mr Takwani drew my attention to the report which contains a statement to the effect that the sample of "Gopeni Goli" was properly sealed and fixation of the seal was found to be intact and unbroken. Mr Takwani drew my attention to the report which contains a statement to the effect that the sample of "Gopeni Goli" was properly sealed and fixation of the seal was found to be intact and unbroken. It further recites that the 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 Mr Takwani pointed out that the Division Bench had taken the view that the specimen impression of the seal must be sent separately as it was impressed by the fact that the Director could not be called in evidence and his report is made final and conclusive by law I do not think that the examination of the Public Analyst can make any difference so far as the mandatory requirement of rule 18 is concerned. If both the food sample packet sent under rule 17 and the specimen impression of the seal along with the memorandum sent under rule 18 are sent with one and the same messenger, there is a danger of both being tampered with and in that event the Public Analyst will find that the seal on both the packet as well as the specimen impression tally. The mischief can be played while the messenger carries the food sample as well as the specimen impression of the seal after they are delivered to him by the Food Inspector and before they are delivered at the office of the Public Analyst. If in transit there is some mischief played and the seals on both are tampered with, the Public Analyst who receives both the food sample as well as the specimen of the impression of the seal will not be able to say that there is any difference in the seals. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Takwani that because the Public Analyst has been examined and the recital in the certificate issued by him indicates that the seal on the packet tallied with the specimen impression of the seal, it cannot be said that there was no possibility of any mischief bang played in transit. I am therefore of the opinion that, in the instant case, the mandatory requirement of rule 18 has been clearly violated. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this argument in para 6 of his judgment. I am therefore of the opinion that, in the instant case, the mandatory requirement of rule 18 has been clearly violated. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has dealt with this argument in para 6 of his judgment. While conceding that the requirement of rule 18 is mandatory, he proceeds to say from the evidence of the Food Inspector in his examination-in-chief (reproduced in his judgment) that rule 18 was not only substantially complied with to the letter. In my opinion, while considering the evidence of the complainant, the learned Sessions Judge overlooked the statement made by the complainant in his cross-examination which clearly shows that rule 18 was violated, in that, the specimen impression of the seal and the memorandum had not been sent separately. 8. In the result, therefore, this revision application succeeds and the order of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge against both the applicants is set aside. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicants. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Revision accepted.