JUDGMENT - KAMBLI, J.:---The applicant accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 7(i) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal preferred by him to the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, has been dismissed. Being aggrieved the applicant has preferred this revision application. 2. The prosecution case to state briefly was that on 21-6-1974 Food Inspector Ammorikar (P.W. 1) had gone to the shop by name "M/s. Gwalani Brothers". He found that the partner of the shop was present in the shop. He purchased 300 grams. of Chandu Tofees for sample from the shop. The partner who was sitting in the shop disclosed that the tofee was manufactured by Shakti Food Products, Nagpur run by the present applicant accused. Therefore, the Food Inspector on 14-8-1974 went to this factory of the accused along with P.S.I. Patil and two Panchas. P.S.I. Patil disclosed the identity to the applicant accused. Then he took search of the shop of the accused. They seized the sweets in that factory along with certain labels and articles. Seizure memo was prepared by P.S.I. Patil as per Ex. 22. Panchanama as per Exh. 23 was also drawn. It was signed by P.S.I. Patil, Food Inspector and the Panchas. 3. The case of the prosecution is that thereafter the Food Inspector took samples out of the coco-burfee and Chandu burfee sized by P.S.I. Patil. According to the prosecution, Food Inspector demanded 1500 grams of burfee labelled as Chandu Products, Bombay, and 375 grams of coco burfee from the accused and paid the price therefore. These samples were ultimately sent to the Public Analyst who reported that both the samples were adulterated and in addition, the coco burfee was misbranded products. After obtaining the sanction from the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation), Nagpur. 4. The applicant accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried. After obtaining the sanction from the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, the Food Inspector filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation), Nagpur. 4. The applicant accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried. It was contended before the learned Magistrate and also before the learned Sessions Judge that there was a breach of the Rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), it was also contended that there was breach of the provisions in Rule 9(j) of the Rules. Breach of Rule 22 of the Rules was also pleaded. The learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge negatived all the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant accused. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present revision application. 5. The first contention raised on behalf of the applicant accused by Mr. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicant was that there was no compliance with Rules 7, 17 and 18 of the Rules. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as under : "7. Duties of a Public Analyst.---(1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or any 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." Then Rules 17 provides :--- "17. Containers of samples how to be sent to the Public Analyst.---The container of sample for analysis shall be sent to the Public Analyst by registered post or by railway parcel or, air freight, or by hand in a sealed packet, enclosed together with memorandum in Form VII in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst." Rule 18 provides :--- "18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately.---A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of 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." Referring to the provisions in Rule 7 it has been contended that not only the sample of the articles has to be sealed but also the outer cover containing the sealed sample and a memorandum in Form No. VII has also to be sealed. He pointed out that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the outer cover was sealed. Relying upon the decision of this Court in (Laxmandas Sarvottamdas v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1975 Maharashtra Law Journal 622. Mr. Manohar submitted that Rules 17 and 18 with Rule 7 are mandatory in nature and non-observance of these Rules could render the conviction based on the report of the Public Analyst improper. My attention was invited to the deposition of the Food Inspector Armorikar (P.W. 1) so far as this aspect regarding the sealing is concerned. His deposition so far as relevant for this purpose is as follows :--- "On 16-8-74 I prepared 3 copies of Form No. 7 for burfee. Same way prepared 3 copies of Form No. 7 for coco burfee. One copy of Form No. 7 and packet of burfee was sealed together and sent to Public Analyst, Nagpur. I sent copy of Form No. 8 and specimen seal to Public Analyst, Nagpur." Referring to the despatch of another sample of coco burfee, the Food Inspector stated that in the same way he sealed coco burfee sample packet and original of Form No. 7 and sent to the Public Analyst. Referring to this part of the deposition of the Food Inspector it is submitted for the applicant that this evidence does not show in clear terms, that the outer packet was sealed. The Marathi version of his deposition also shows that there was no reference to sealing. My attention was also invited to acknowledgements received in respect of the two samples from the Public Analyst. They are respectively Exhibits 34 and 35 and Exhs. 36 and 37. Exh. 34 relates to sample of coco burfee and Exh. 36 relates to the sample of burfee. It was pointed out that in acknowledgements Exhs. My attention was also invited to acknowledgements received in respect of the two samples from the Public Analyst. They are respectively Exhibits 34 and 35 and Exhs. 36 and 37. Exh. 34 relates to sample of coco burfee and Exh. 36 relates to the sample of burfee. It was pointed out that in acknowledgements Exhs. 35 and 37 for which duplicate copy of Form No. 7 and specimen impression of seal were sent, these articles were sent in a sealed packet. However, so far as the acknowledgement in respect of food sample and original copy of Form No. 7 were concerned (Exhs. 34 and 36) it was pointed out that there was no such statement in those acknowledgements showing that the articles concerned, namely, the food sample and original copy of Form No. 7 were sent in sealed packets. One could have over-looked this deficiency if the evidence of the Food Inspector on the point would have been clear. However, as pointed out above, that evidence does not satisfactorily establish that the outer over was sealed. Mr. Darda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, invited my attention to the deposition of the Public Analyst, Mr. Sagade who was examined as P.W. 7. He did not say anything in respect of the sealing of the sample as well as outer cover in his examination-in-chief. However, in reply to certain question in the cross-examination he stated that :--- "We maintain a register and in it, it is mentioned that the sample was received in a sealed packet. I have confirmed that Shri Pitale did receive the sealed packet containing Form No. VII and the sealed sample, but it is not so mentioned on the acknowledgement, Exh. 32." He also stated in reply to further questions that he had received the sample of burfee in a sealed packet but that fact was not mentioned in acknowledgement, Exh. 34. 6. Now, the Public Analyst Mr. Sagade analysed this sample sometime in September 1974. He was examined in the Court in May 1977. It is submitted for the applicant accused that no safe reliance can be placed upon his testimony rendered in the Court after such a long time to the effect that, in fact, he had confirmed that the articles in question, namely, the sample and the memorandum in Form No. 7 were received in a sealed packet. It is submitted for the applicant accused that no safe reliance can be placed upon his testimony rendered in the Court after such a long time to the effect that, in fact, he had confirmed that the articles in question, namely, the sample and the memorandum in Form No. 7 were received in a sealed packet. It was also pointed out that the register to which the witness had made a reference does not appear to have been referred to by him at the time he gave his evidence. It is clear that the offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are serious offences involving some severe sentence in the form of substantial imprisonment and fine. It is, therefore, necessary to see that the provisions in the Rules have been scrupulously followed. The decision of, the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Laxmandas referred to above and some other decisions have taken a view that the provisions in Rules 7 and 17 of the Rules requiring that an outer cover containing the food sample and the memorandum in Form No. 7 should be sealed are mandatory in character. Having regard to the unsatisfactory state of evidence on this point, I think that the prosecution has failed to establish that these requirement as regards sealing of the outer cover has been complied with. 7. It was then contended that there is breach of the provisions in Rule 9(j) of the Rules. Rule 9 deals with the duties of a Food Inspector. Rule 9(j) as it stood at the material time read as follows :--- "9 Duties of Food Inspector.---It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector--- (j) to send by hand or registered post, a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the same was taken, in case it is found to be not conforming to the Act or Rules made thereunder, as soon as the case is filed in the Court." It has been contended on behalf of the applicant accused that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the accused. Now, the Food Inspector stated in his deposition that he had sent copies of the reports of Public Analyst (Exhs. 36 and 37) to accused with a forwarding letter signed by Assistant Commission, Shri N.R. Deshpande. Now, the Food Inspector stated in his deposition that he had sent copies of the reports of Public Analyst (Exhs. 36 and 37) to accused with a forwarding letter signed by Assistant Commission, Shri N.R. Deshpande. The office copy of this letter was brought on the record. It is at Exh. 38. In the cross-examination of the Food Inspector it has been elicited that he did not receive back the postal acknowledgement for sending the reports of the Public Analyst to the accused. It was also brought out in his cross-examination that he did not file on the record the postal receipts showing that the copies of the reports were sent to the accused by registered post. A definite suggestion was made to this witness to the effect that he had not sent the copies of the reports of the Public Analyst to the accused till the day he was examined and it was further suggested that in order to conceal this deficiency, letter Exh. 38 was fabricated and placed on the record. In the face of this suggestion, it was the duty of the prosecution to make an attempt to produce postal acknowledgement showing that the copies of the report of the Public Analyst were, in fact, sent to the accused or at any rate to produce the receipts which must have been obtained from the post office concerned at the time of despatching the reports of the accused. It is contended for the applicant accused that the prosecution could have easily produced in Court the despatch register of the office concerned which would have shown that the communications containing the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was, in fact, sent to the applicant accused. In the fact of a challenge on the part of the applicant accused that he had not received the copies of the report, it was necessary for the prosecution to bring all possible material on the record. This has not been done. It will, therefore, have to be held that the prosecution has failed to proved that there was compliance of the provisions in Rule 9(j) of the Rules. This has not been done. It will, therefore, have to be held that the prosecution has failed to proved that there was compliance of the provisions in Rule 9(j) of the Rules. A Single Judge of this Court in the (State of Maharashtra v. Jesti Dosa)2, 1978 Criminal Law Journal 427 : 1977 U.C.R. (Bom.) 595, has observed :--- "that sending of a copy of Public Analysts report to the accused by registered post is mandatory." Similarly, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in (Bhola Nath Nayek v. The State)3, 1977 Criminal Law Journal 154 has expressed the same view observing, "The intent of the rule is to give an opportunity to a person from whom sample has been taken to have it examined by an expert of his choice. Such a right is independent of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Delay of more than 101/2 months in the supply of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused, held caused prejudice to the defence." A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in (Public Prosecutor v. J. Murlidhar)4, F.A.C. Volume II, 1977, Page 174. The learned Judges of the Division Bench observed as follows :--- "Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 9(j)-as a mandatory provisions-report of the Public Analyst should be sent to the person from whom the sample was obtained-but if there is some delay in sending the report, the complainants case cannot be thrown out unless the accused shows that even this slight delay has caused prejudice to him-however when the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the accused even until the filing of the complainant then in such a case, the accused could be acquitted without his pleading prejudice." The learned District Judge while disposing of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant-accused tried to get over the argument sought to be advanced on behalf of the accused by observing that though the rule is mandatory, it never says that there should be a receipt from the accused in order to prove that the copy of the report was sent by post or by hand delivery. He further observed that there is no reason why the substantive evidence given by the Food Inspector should not be believed when it is corroborated by an official correspondence. He further observed that there is no reason why the substantive evidence given by the Food Inspector should not be believed when it is corroborated by an official correspondence. It appears that when he referred to official correspondence he had in his mind the copy of the forwarding letter, Exh. 38, along with which the copies of the reports are said to have been sent to the accused. It may be mentioned that the prosecution has not pleaded that the postal acknowledgement receipt or the receipt obtained from the Postal Department when the letter was sent have been misplaced. The prosecution has also not explained as to why they could not produce the despatch register in the Court when the accused strenuously disputed that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him. The prosecution could have brought some evidence to corroborate the evidence of the Food Inspector to substantiate his say that the copy of the report was sent to the accused and as such evidence has not been brought, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove by satisfactory evidence that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused and that too within the prescribed time. 8. One more infirmity that has been pointed out on behalf of the applicant is as regards the valid consent to initiate the prosecution. We have at Exhs. 39 and 40 the orders as regards this consent. Now, if these orders are read, it is difficult to ascertain whether there was proper application of mind before the consent was accorded to the institution of prosecution. We have at Exhs. 39 and 40 the orders as regards this consent. Now, if these orders are read, it is difficult to ascertain whether there was proper application of mind before the consent was accorded to the institution of prosecution. The text of the order is as follows :--- "The order on the face of it does not show that before this consent was accorded, the authority concerned namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Nagpur Circle, Food and Drug Administration, Nagpur, had before it necessary material to satisfy itself that there was a prima facie case for according the consent." It has been observed by the Supreme Court in (Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh)5, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 637 :--- "The burden of proving that the requisite sanction has been obtained rests on the prosecution and such burden includes proof that the Sanctioning Authority had given the sanction in reference to the facts on which the proposed prosecution was to be based; and these facts may appear on the fact of the sanction or may be proved by extraneous evidence. Where the facts constituting the offence do not appear on the face of the letter sanctioning prosecution, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove by other evidence that the material facts constituting the offence were placed before the Sanctioning Authority. Where this is not done, the sanction must be held to be defective and an invalid sanction cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court to try the case." Now, the consent order on the face of it does not show that the Sanctioning Authority had before it any material in the form of a report etc., submitted by the Food Inspector nor the Food Inspector has in his evidence referred to the fact that any correspondence was placed before the authority granting the consent. The contention, therefore, sought to be raised on behalf of the applicant accused that the consent is not valid and that, therefore, the prosecution of the accused stands vitiated has to be accepted. 9. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to bring guilt home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt by satisfactory evidence. In that view of the matter, other contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the applicant accused need not be adverted to. 9. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, it will have to be held that the prosecution has failed to bring guilt home to the accused beyond reasonable doubt by satisfactory evidence. In that view of the matter, other contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the applicant accused need not be adverted to. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the applicant accused that the evidence on the record shows that articles in question were first seized by P.S.I. Patil from the shop of the accused and that thereafter the Food Inspector purported to purchase the samples therefrom. It is submitted that when the Food Inspector says that he purchased the samples from the accused, the articles in fact were not in the possession of the accused. They were already seized by P.S.I. it was contended that it cannot, therefore, be said that the samples were taken from the possession of the accused. One more contention that was urged on behalf of the accused was that Public Analyst Mr. Sagade (P.W. 7) was not competent to analyse the samples collected within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Nagpur. It is submitted that Mr. Sagade is not validity appointed for the local limits of the area of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and that, therefore, his reports are inadmissible in evidence. In view of the infirmities that have been successfully pointed out on behalf of the applicant accused, I need not advert to these contentions. 10. The applicant accused was also charged for an offence of misbranding of the articles in question within the meaning of section 2(ix) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The prosecution case in this behalf seems to be that the articles in questions, namely, burfee and coco tofee were manufactured by the accused in his factory at Nagpur and even so he had put on them the labels suggesting that they were prepared in some other factories at Bombay. It is sufficient to point out that there is no substantive evidence on the record to point out that the applicant accused had put false labels on the articles which he had in fact manufactured in his factory at Nagpur. Mr. Darda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader invited my attention to some of the material on record showing that the applicant accused prepares burfee and coco tofee etc. in his factory. Mr. Darda, the learned Assistant Government Pleader invited my attention to some of the material on record showing that the applicant accused prepares burfee and coco tofee etc. in his factory. He also referred to the evidence which shows that coco tofee bearing the labels of Chandu Products, Bombay, were recovered from the shop of the applicant accused. It is not unlikely that the articles which are said to have been labelled with the labels Chandu tofee Bombay were purchased by the accused applicant out of the articles manufactured by Chandu tofee Bombay. It is not sufficient to show that the applicant accused manufactured burfee and coco tofee in his factory at Nagpur. What is necessarily to be shown is that such articles manufactured in his factory at Nagpur were labelled with false labels. There is no such clear evidence brought on record by the prosecution. No pointed questions were asked to the applicant accused in this behalf in his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It will, therefore, have to be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge as regards misbranding also against the applicant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the result, this revision application must be allowed, and the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Corporation) Nagpur, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, will have to be set aside. The fine, if paid, by the accused shall be refunded to him. Rule made absolute. Application allowed. -----