JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Mohanlal was tried by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar for the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. By his judgment dated 16.6.1976 the learned Magistrate held the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to six months Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to undergo two months imprisonment. Being aggrieved by that jndgment the petitioner preferred an appeal Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 9.10.76 dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition are that on 6.5.75 Veer Singh, Food Inspector checked the milk which the petitioner was carry for sale. The Food Inspector purchased from him 660 m.g. milk for sample and offered the payment, but the petitioner did not accept the payment and also refused to sign the receipt. The Food Inspector put the sample milk in three phials and wanted to give one of it to the petitioner which also the latter refused to take. The sample of milk was sent to the Public Analyst who examined it and opened that die sample was adulterated by reason of abstraction of about 19% of the original fat and addition of about 23% water. 3. After obtaining sanction from the Chairman, Municipal Board, Raisinghnagar, challan was submitted against the petitioner in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Raisinghnagar who proceeded with the trial and placing reliance on the prosecution evidence passed the judgment of conviction which was affirmed by the appellate court. 4. While advancing arguments in this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only on a point of law that on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rules 7, 17 and 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration rules, the trial stands vitiated and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 5. 4. While advancing arguments in this petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued only on a point of law that on account of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rules 7, 17 and 18 of Prevention of Food Adulteration rules, the trial stands vitiated and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside. 5. According to the learned counsel the Food Inspector is required to send the container of the sample for analysis in a sealed packet enclosed together with the memorandum in Form VII in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst who in his turn will check up whether the seal on the sample as well as on the outer cover tally with the impression seal separately sent to him by the Food Inspector. It has been stressed by the learned counsel that in this case the sealed outer cover not reaching to the public Analyst, he had no to check up the seal on it. 6. Learned Public prosecutor fairly agrees that there is no evidence that the outer cover was sealed but controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner he has submitted that it is a mere formality and non-compliance of it will not be sufficient to acquit the petitioner. 7. heard the rival contention and gave my anxious consideration to the material on record. 8. Rule 17 and 18 lay down the duties of the Food Inspector and the procedure he is to adopt in sending the sample for analysis. 9. Rule 17 provides that the container of the sample 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. 10. Rule 18 provides that the 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. 11. Rule 7 lays down the duties of the public Analyst. 10. Rule 18 provides that the 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. 11. Rule 7 lays down the duties of the public Analyst. It reads as under : R. 7 (1) On receipt of 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 specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. (2) The Public Analyst shall cause to be analysed such sample of food as may be sent to him by the Food Inspector or by any other person under the Act. (3) After the analysis has been completed he shall send to the person concerned two copies of the report of the result of such analysis in Form III within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the sample. 12. By a bare reading of R. 17 it cannot be contemplated that the Food Inspector is expected to seal the outer cover containing the sample. It is from R. 7 and Form III which the public Analyst is to fill up and send to the Inspector under R. 7 (3) that the provision for sending the outer cover also in sealed Condition is spelt out. 13. In case there is no seal on the outer cover, the direction in R. 7 cannot be complied with. Under R. 7 (1) the comparison of the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression is to be made by public Analyst. Prior to the amendment of the Rules in 1968 sub-rule and 2 of Rule 7 were as they are now but Rule 3 was there after amended and accordingly the Public Analyst is required to send the report and the result of analysis in Form III. In Form No. Ill also there was amendment in 1968 and 1973. In the year 1968 the words "The seal fixed on the container and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis" were added. In Form No. Ill also there was amendment in 1968 and 1973. In the year 1968 the words "The seal fixed on the container and the sample was in a condition fit for analysis" were added. Thereafter in the year 1973 the words "outer cover', were further added and Form No. Ill was to be in the following form , - FORM III (See rule 7 (3) Report by the Public Analyst Report No............... hereby certify that I..............................duly appointed under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, received on the.............. day of..........19 from ....................a sample of .............for analysis, proper sealed and fastened, and that found the seal intact and unbroken, The seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the food inspector 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. I further certify that................................................. and am of the opinion that ............................. ................................................... ............................................................................................................................. ...............................................................................Signed this ........................day of...................19........... (Signature) Public Analyst. Address............................................................. 14. From the reading of R. 7 and Form III. the position is quite clear that the container as well as the outer cover are to be sealed. Under R. 7 the Public Analyst is to examine the seals of the samples and the outer cover and then to fill up Form III and send it to the concerned Food Inspector. If the outer cover is not scaled, then compliance of R. 7 cannot be made i. e. to say the specimen impressions of the seal separated received by him would not be tallied with the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover and Form III would not be properly filled up. 15. The provision of R. 18 for sending the copy of the memorandum and specimen impressions of the seal used to seal the packet separately is mandatory. Similarly the direction in R.7 (3) is also mandatory in nature and that direction will be complied with by the Public Analyst only if he fills up Form. III. Naturally the filling of Form III presupposes a sealed container as well as a sealed outer cover. 16. Similar question came before this Court in/the cases of The State of Rajasthan v. Ramsahai The State of Rajasthan v. Banshilal 1979 Cr.L.R. 60. III. Naturally the filling of Form III presupposes a sealed container as well as a sealed outer cover. 16. Similar question came before this Court in/the cases of The State of Rajasthan v. Ramsahai The State of Rajasthan v. Banshilal 1979 Cr.L.R. 60. and it was observed that there was a purpose behind the amendment of Form No. Ill in 1968 and 1973 and under Sub - Rule (3) of Rule 7 the Public Analyst is required to send the report in Form No. III. In that judgment the learned judge has discussed in detail the duties of the Food Inspector under Rules 17 and 18 and those of the Public Analyst under Rule 7 and has arrived at a conclusion that the function which has been assigned to the Public Analyst in Rule 7 finds mention in Form III. 17. From the perusal of the three rules, it is thus clear that though there is no specific direction in R. 17 for the Food Inspector to seal the outer cover but it being read with R. 7 and Form III impliedly speaks of it. The reasons for this have already been stated earlier. 18. With this position of law in view will now examine the factual aspect of the case to ascertain whether the compliance of these rules was made by the Food Inspector and the Public Analyst or not. The relevant material on the record on this issue is the statement of Food Inspector and the report of the Public Analyst given in Form III, Ex. P. 8. The Food Inspector Veersingh has staled that he had prepared three copies of Form VII, one of which was sent to Public Analyst with sealed sample on 5.6.75 through Banshilal, Driver P. H. C. Raisinghnagar. Second copy was sent separately to the Public Anal fast with Banshilal, Driver on which there was the specimen impression of the seal affixed on the sample. The third copy of Form VII was kept by the witness. Though Banshilal, Driver has not been examined to support this contention still there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Veersingh, Food Inspector that Form VII was enclosed with the sample and specimen impression was also sent separately. Thus there is compliance of provision of law so far as R. 18 is concerned. 19. Though Banshilal, Driver has not been examined to support this contention still there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Veersingh, Food Inspector that Form VII was enclosed with the sample and specimen impression was also sent separately. Thus there is compliance of provision of law so far as R. 18 is concerned. 19. The pertinent question now remains to be answered is whether the compliance of R. 7 and 17 was made or not. As stated earlier R. 17 does not contemplate the outer cover to be sealed but as noted above compliance of R. 7 is possible by the Public Analyst only if the outer cover containing the sample also reached him in sealed condition and then alone he would be able to fill up Form III as amended in 1973. 20. There may be cases in which though there is no oral evidence to prove that the outer cover was sealed still if Form III is in proper lines an inference may be drawn that the Food Inspector might have discharged his duty in regular manner. But in this case there is neither oral evidence nor the contents of Form 111 suggest that the outer cover of the container was also sealed so as to provide a opportunity to the Public Analyst to check it and tally the seals with the specimen impressions sent separately. To understand this position, the relevant portion of Form III Ex P.8. is reproduced under:- "I hereby certify that I....................received............from the Food Inspector a sample of.............for analysis, properly sealed and fastened, and that found the seal intact and unbroken. The seal fixed 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". 21. The words outer cover of the sample not appearing in this Form III, there arises no question even of any inference being drawn about the Food Inspector sending the outer cover in a sealed condition. When a particular thing is directed to be done in a particular way it should be done in that way only. The requirement to seal the outer container of the sample is to assure a safe guard about the fair proceedings in the process of taking the sample and therefore the provision of See. When a particular thing is directed to be done in a particular way it should be done in that way only. The requirement to seal the outer container of the sample is to assure a safe guard about the fair proceedings in the process of taking the sample and therefore the provision of See. 7 (3) are mandatory in nature and its non-compliance is bound to be fatal to the prosecution case. 22. This being the position of law, keeping it in view in the circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to hold that the Public Analyst did not receive the outer cover containing the sample in sealed condition and therefore, the provisions of Rule 7 have not been complied by him. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be reasonably justified on that score. 23. In the result, the revision petition is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. His bail bonds stand discharged.Petitioner acquitted. *******