JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 12-11-1976, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Merta whereby the respondent Manak Chand was acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Food Inspector Shri Sitaram Sharma, visited the shop of the accused-respondent on 5-5-1968 and purchased a sample of `Gur' for analysis in the presence of the `motbirs'. The necessary formalities were completed in the presence of `motbirs' and thereafter one of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Jaipur, who on analysis found the `Gur' to be adulterated. Then in pursuance of the authority of the Assistant Director of Health Services appointed as Local Authority he presented a complaint. The learned Magistrate tried the accused and acquitted him on the ground that it is not proved that Shri Sitaram was appointed as Food Inspector, as no notification regarding his appointment as Food Inspector published in Official Gazette was produced. He was also acquitted on the ground that no valid consent for prosecution was proved, as well as it is also not proved that the 'Gur' purchased for analysis was meant for human consumption and as such was not an article of food. Dissatisfied with the acquittal of the accused-respondent the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave. 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. 4. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the record I am of the opinion that the acquittal in this case does not deserve to be set aside in view of the fact that compliance of rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, admittedly has not been made, which is a mandatory provision. Though this has not been made the basis of the acquittal by the learned Magistrate, but it is borne out from the statement of the Food Inspector himself that compliance of rule 18 was not made inasmuch as specimen seal impression was not separately sent to the Public Analyst. Besides that, it is also not proved by the Food Inspector that the `Gur' purchased was for human consumption. Besides that, it is also not proved by the Food Inspector that the `Gur' purchased was for human consumption. Without any proof in this regard it cannot be found that the sample of `Gur' purchased was `food' within the meaning of section 2(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In view of these considerations it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds of acquittal. 5. In the result, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******