JUDGMENT 1. - This an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 19th October, 1970, passed by the Sessions Jodge, Bhilwara, whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), reversing the judgment of the Magistrate, First Class, Bhilwara, dated 29.12.1969, convicting the accused for the said offence and sentencing him to six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for l1/2 months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 9.10.1967 the Food Inspector Sardar Singh purchased a sample of milk from the accused-respondent and divided the same into three equal parts in three bottles, which were duly sealed. One bottle was given to the respondent and the other was sent to the Public Analyst and the third one was sent to the District Health Authority, which was presented along with the complaint. On examination of the sample the Public Analyst reported that the sample was adulterated and it contained 10% of added water. After obtaining necessary sanction for the prosecution, a complaint was presented. After trial the respondent was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, but on appeal he was acquitted. 3. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused respondent. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the sole ground that the compliance of rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was not made and it is not proved that the copy of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to teal the packet, was sent to the public analyst separately by registered post. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that in the report of the public analyst Ex. P/5 there is a mention of this fact that the seal of the packet was similar to the seal impression, affixed on the memorandum. The learned Public Prosecutor urged that in the report of the public analyst Ex. P/5 there is a mention of this fact that the seal of the packet was similar to the seal impression, affixed on the memorandum. This part of the report should be read with the state meet of the Food Inspector Sardarsingh, who has stated that the sealed bootle of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst by railway parcel Form VII was also exercised and a duplicate copy of Form VII was sent by registered post containing the specimen of the seal impression, which was used at the time of the sealing the sample. He urged that if the statement of the Food Inspector is read along with the report, then it cannot be said that there was any non-compliance of rule 18 of the Rules. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent, on the other hand, urged that the aforesaid part of the report of the public analyst Ex. P/4 is inadmissible In evidence and in support of his contention the learned counsels relied on the authority Prabhakar Roghunath Kemerka v. The State of Maharashtra and Another 1977 Cr. L. J 127 . He further urged that the oral testimony of the Food Inspector cannot be relied upon in the absence of documentary evidence. The prosecution has failed to produce the postal receipt and the acknowledgement receipt. He also into invited our attention to the fact that the copy of the memorandum bearing the specimen seal impression, has nut been placed on record, nor 'panchnama' Ex. P/1 bears the specimen seal impression. With regard to the acknowledgement receipt, the Food Inspector stated that it might be in the office and orally he has testified on the basis of memorandum that Form VII (Memorandum) was sent through registered post to the public analyst. This part of his statement has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge, in the absence of necessary documents and the documentary evidence could only be the best proof. In the absence of the best evidence, for the non production of which there is no material on record, there was no option left to the learned Sessions ,Judge except to hold that there had been non-compliance of rule 18 of the Rules. He urged that the report Ex. In the absence of the best evidence, for the non production of which there is no material on record, there was no option left to the learned Sessions ,Judge except to hold that there had been non-compliance of rule 18 of the Rules. He urged that the report Ex. P/4 is not in the prescribed form and does not satisfy the requirements of law. The report does not contain a statement that the public analyst compared the seals on the container and the outer cover of the sample with the specimen impression of the seal sent separately by registered post by the Food Inspector and it has not been stated in the report that the seals on the container and the outer cover tallied with the specimen impression of the seals separately sent. The Rule 18 is mandatory in its character and its next compliance is fata1 to the prosecution. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions advanced before us by both the sides. 7. It is common ground between the parties and, it is not in dispute that rule 18 of the Rules is mandatory in nature and compliance thereof is a must. The only question to he examined by us is as to whether the compliance of rule 18 has been made out and proved by the prosecution in this case. Before dealing with the statement of the Food Inspector and the report of the public analyst, it would be proper to notice the provisions contained in rule 7 and rules 17 and 18. Part V of the Rules deals with sealing, fastening and despatch of samples. Rule 14 deals with the manner of sending samples for analysis. Rule 15 deals with bottles and containers to be labelled and addressed. Rule 16 deals with the manner of packing and sealing of the samples. We are concerned with sending of the containers of the samples to the public analyst which is provided in rules 17 and 18 of the Rules. Rule 15 deals with bottles and containers to be labelled and addressed. Rule 16 deals with the manner of packing and sealing of the samples. We are concerned with sending of the containers of the samples to the public analyst which is provided in rules 17 and 18 of the Rules. So far as rule 7 is concerned, it provides duties of public analyst and sub-clause (3) mentions that on completion of the analysis, the public analyst is required to send the report of the result in Form III and it should be stated that the seal affixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample tallied with the impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis. Further it would be useful to reproduce the rules 17 and 18:- "R. 17." Containers of samples to be sent to the public analyst. 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 a 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 in Form VII shall bear the following additional information: (i) Grade; (ii) Agmark label No./Batch No. (iii) Name of packing station." "R. 18 Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal the packet shall be sent to the public analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised to him" 8. It would appear from the above provisions that the container of sample is to be sent to the public analyst in a sealed packet and enclosed together with the memorandum in Form VII in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst and further what is required is that a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet has to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him. 9. 9. Coming to the evidence on record for the purpose of satisfying as to the compliance of the above rules, it may be mentioned that there is the oral testimony of Food Inspector that the railway parcel of the sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst accompanied with Form VII and the duplicate copy of Form VII was sent through registered post bearing the seal impression. The postal receipt and acknowledgement receipt of sending memorandum and the specimen of the seal, have not been produced and proved. In this regard reference has been made to the report of the Public Analyst Ex. P/4, but we need not go into the question of admissibility in evidence of this part of the report Ex. P/4 that the seal of the packet was similar to the seal impression affixed on the memorandum, though in the cited case, the aforesaid part of the report has been held inadmissible. Even if the said part of the report is held admissible in evidence, still requirements of law are not satisfied. The report no where says that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were separately received. It may be that the memorandum bearing the seal impression was found by the Public Analyst in the sealed packet itself. So from the report it cannot be found that it is suggestive of the compliance of rule 18 of the Rules. It may also be stated that the report is not in confirmity with the Form III. Thus, no help can be drawn from Ex. P/4 regarding compliance of rule 18. The other evidence is of the Food Inspector, but his testimony is not supported by any document, which should have been produced and the best evidence has been with held. The postal receipt and the acknowledgement receipt were the best evidence. Further the copy of the memorandum bearing the seal impression, has also not been produced. In our opinion, the oral testimony of the Food Inspector, without the supporting documentary evidence, cannot be believed, more particularly when necessary corroboration is not forthwith coming from the report Ex. P/4. Thus, the compliance of rule 7(3) and rule 18 of the Rules has not been proved by the prosecution so in our opinion, conviction has been rightly not sustained by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. No other point has been pressed before us. 11. P/4. Thus, the compliance of rule 7(3) and rule 18 of the Rules has not been proved by the prosecution so in our opinion, conviction has been rightly not sustained by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. No other point has been pressed before us. 11. In the result we do not find any force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******