JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Dharmamal has preferred this revision against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 22nd June, 1974 by which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also the sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of which further simple imprisonment for two months was maintained. The facts briefly stated are : On 27-11-1968 at about 9.30 A.M. Haridutt Kaushik, Food Inspector Municipal Board, Jalore purchased a sample of Til oil from the petitioner and divided the sample into three parts and sealed them, One of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur for analysis. From the report of the Public Analyst dated 19-12-1968 this sample of Til oil was found adulterated. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case carefully. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure given under Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called as, the Rules) was not complied with. The compliance of this Rule was mandatory and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to acquittal. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention. 3. I have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which appear to have great force. Rule 18 of the Rules is to the following effect : "18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately.A copy of the memorandum and 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. 4. P.W. 3 Hari Datt Kaushik, in his statement did not state that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal which was to seal the packet was sent to the Public Analyst separately, nor this fact can be inferred from Ex. P. 5, the report of the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. From Ex. P. 5 it does not transpire that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal was received by the Public Analyst separately. P. 5, the report of the Public Analyst, Jodhpur. From Ex. P. 5 it does not transpire that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal was received by the Public Analyst separately. In such circumstances it was thus observed in State of Rajasthan v. Mangu 1979 (II) FAC 109 :- "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." I am also referred to another decision of this Court namely; The State of Rajasthan v. Ramsahai and Banshilal (1979 Cr. L.R. (S.C. & Raj. 60 ), wherein it was thus observed : "The reports Ex. P/6 are not in the prescribed Form. It may be mentioned that the Form was amended in 1968 and 1973 and there was a purpose behind the amendment. Sub-rules (L) and (2) of rule 7 already stood as they were, but sub-rule (3) of rule (3) was amended and under sub-rule (3) the Public Analyst was required to send the report and the result of analysis in Form III. If the reports do not contain anything other than the result of the analysis, all presumptions could have been raised with regard to the functions of the Public Analyst, as cantemplated in rule 7, but in my humble opinion, in face of the present contents of the reports not satisfying the requirements of law, no presumption can be raised. Thus, firstly, there is no oral testimony of the Food Inspector regarding compliance of the rules 17 and 18, secondly the reports Ex. P/6, in the present cases, are not in conformity with the prescribed Form complying with rule 7 of the Rules. In my opinion, the presumption regarding compliance of rule 18 cannot be made when compliance of rule 7 is not evident from the reports Ex. P/6, which I have discussed above. The deficiencies and the lacunae in the reports, dealt with above, do not persuade me to raise any presumption under Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act. The view which has been taken by the learned Magistrate, cannot be said to be wrong, as rightly in the circumstances of the case no presumption under Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act can be raised." It may be stated that the report Ex. The view which has been taken by the learned Magistrate, cannot be said to be wrong, as rightly in the circumstances of the case no presumption under Section 114, illustration (e) of the Evidence Act can be raised." It may be stated that the report Ex. P. 5 was not in the prescribed form in this case and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that no presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was permissible. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove any offence whatsoever as that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules were complied with. Since its compliance is mandatory and therefore its breach would entail the acquittal of the petitioner. 5. In the result, I accept the revision petition and acquit the petitioner of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and set aside the judgment of the learned lower court. Fine if deposited may be refunded to the petitioner. The bail bonds are hereby discharged.Petition accepted. *******