JUDGMENT - S.P. KURUDKAR, J.:---The petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 7(1)(vi) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule A-11-01-11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. The complainant, Vithalrao Baburao Shinde, was serving as a Food Inspector in Miraj Municipal Council. The accused is a resident of village Manmodi in Miraj Taluka. On July 29, 1975 at about 11 Oclock in the morning at Mangalwarpeth in Miraj City the accused was found carrying two pitchers containing she-buffalo milk on his bi-cycle. One of the pitcher was containing 20 litres of milk and the other was containing 5 litres of milk. The complainant who was standing on the road asked the accused to stop and demanded the she-buffalo milk from him. The complainant accordingly took 660 milli-litres of milk and paid him Rs. 1.65 under a receipt. It is no more in dispute that the complainant had issued a notice to the accused. The complainant thereafter divided the sample into three equal parts and filled the same into three separate clean, dry and empty bottles. After adding the preservatives in the three bottles and after following the proper procedure he sent one bottle to the Public Analyst along with the memorandum. The report of the Public Analyst is at Exhibit 20. The conclusion of the Public Analyst is that the sample did not confirm the standard of she-buffalo milk as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Sanitary Committee, Miraj Municipal Council, Miraj, the present complaint came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Miraj. 3. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. During the pendency of the case, the accused made an application to the trial Court to send his sample bottle to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly the trial Magistrate sent the sample bottle to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, is at Exhibit 12. 4. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of the complainant himself and the panch witness. The defence is support of its case examined none. 5. Accordingly the trial Magistrate sent the sample bottle to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta and the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, is at Exhibit 12. 4. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of the complainant himself and the panch witness. The defence is support of its case examined none. 5. The trial Magistrate accepted the case of the prosecution and relying upon the report of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta came to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 7(1)(v) read with section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, read with Rule No. A-11-10-11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 700/- i.d. to undergo further R.I. for 15 days. 6. Being aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court at Sangli. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, by his judgment and order dated October 21, 1978 in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1978 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence against the accused. Against these concurrent judgments of the courts below the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Application to this Court. 7. The Criminal Revisional Application can be disposed of on a short ground as to whether there is sufficient compliance of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Mr. P.S. Patankar the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused drew my attention to the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at para 10 of the judgment and submitted that this finding is vitiated by reason of the fact that the record of the present case does not show that the learned trial Magistrate has followed the procedure as required by Rule 4 of the said Rules. It is urged by Mr. Patankar that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in observing that : ".......The point for consideration is whether the trial Judge had complied with the provisions of Rule 4. At his stage, I have to consider certificate (Exh. 12). It mentions that the seals were intact. It is urged by Mr. Patankar that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in observing that : ".......The point for consideration is whether the trial Judge had complied with the provisions of Rule 4. At his stage, I have to consider certificate (Exh. 12). It mentions that the seals were intact. This itself will show that more than one sealed packets were sent and it will have to be presumed that the seals of packets of memorandum and specimen were sent separately. It is not mentioned in the Rule that the Court should make a note in writing as to how the procedure was followed. There is also not Rule that the said samples should be sent in presence of the accused. It was ministerial act of the trial Court and it appears that the memorandum and specimen of seal were sent separately into two sealed packets and certificate (Exh. 12), therefore, indicated that the two seals were intact. There is no record to show that the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal were sent together to the office of the Public Analyst. There was therefore, no force in the contention of Mr. Bapat that Rule 4 was not properly complied with." This finding, according to Mr. Patankar, is based upon what is stated in the report at Exhibit 12. It is contended on behalf of the accused that unless it is shown by the prosecution that there is sufficient compliance of Rule 4 by adducing proper and satisfactory evidence on record, the Court is not entitled to draw an inference from this certificate at Exhibit 12 and come to the conclusion that Rule 4 must have been complied with. In order to appreciate this contention I have gone through the record of the case and it is pertinent to note that the memorandum prepared by the trial Magistrate is at Exhibit 25. This memorandum undoubtedly says : "A copy of the Memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and cover are sent separately by registered post." There is also a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover and is produced at Exhibit 26. This memorandum undoubtedly says : "A copy of the Memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and cover are sent separately by registered post." There is also a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover and is produced at Exhibit 26. But, however, it is seen from the record that neither the two receipts under which these two covers were sent separately by post to the Central Food Laboratory nor the two acknowledgements are produced on record. In the absence of these two receipts on the record it would by very difficult to hold that a copy of memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover was sent separately by registered post. It was the duty of the prosecution to see that these two documents are placed on the record. If we look at sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 it creates an impression that the learned trial Magistrate has followed the procedure as prescribed under these sub-rules but, however, non production of the postal acknowledgement receipts creates a doubt as to whether the ministerial work has been properly carried out or not as directed by the learned trial Magistrate in his memorandum. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the wording of Exhibit 12 that the seals were intact drew on inference that the memorandum at Exhibit 25 and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and cover at Exhibit 26 must have been sent separately as per the Rule 4(3) and 4(4). In my opinion this inference is altogether erroneous and in the absence of any positive evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have recorded a finding that there is sufficient compliance of Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Rules. Mr. In my opinion this inference is altogether erroneous and in the absence of any positive evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have recorded a finding that there is sufficient compliance of Rules 4(3) and 4(4) of the Rules. Mr. Patankr strongly relied upon the unreported judgments of this Court in (Satyanaran s/o Manilal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1978 U.C.R. (Bom.) 46, Criminal Revisional Application No. 56 of 1976 delivered by Justice Dharmadhikar on 29-7-1976, (The State of Maharashtra v. Trilokchand Bhivraj Jain)2, 1978 U.C.R. (Bom.) 244 Criminal Revisional Application No. 261 of 1976 by Justice Dighe delivered on 4-8-1977, and (Criminal Revision Application No. 329 of 1977, decide by Justice Naik)3, on 29-3-1978 and submitted that this Court has consistently held that the provisions of Rule 4 are mandatory and it must be shown by satisfactory evidence on record that the trial Magistrate has followed the due procedure. Mr. Patankar further relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in the Gujarat Law Reporter Vol. XVII (Shriram Harichand gujaral v. State of Gujarat)4, page 434; in which it has been held by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court that provisions of section 4(3) are mandatory. It has been held that sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, in so for as it lays down that the specimen impression of the seal and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent separately by registered post to the Director serves a special purpose for the accused. It assumes greater significance in cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where the fate of the accused depends upon the certificate issued by the Director the contents of which are final and conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and which are not open to challenge by the accused in any manner whatsoever. Not only he cannot challenge the contents of the certificate by leading any other evidence but he cannot also challenge the contents by requiring the Director to be cross-examined by him. Once the Director issues a certificate that the food sample sent to him was adulterated the face of the accused is sealed. It is not open to him even to ask the Court to get back the food sample analysed by the Director for further analysis by his own expert. Once the Director issues a certificate that the food sample sent to him was adulterated the face of the accused is sealed. It is not open to him even to ask the Court to get back the food sample analysed by the Director for further analysis by his own expert. When the final and conclusion character attributed to the certificate issued by the Director produces such a far-reaching consequence, there is no doubt that all provisions of law which relate to it and which confer even the smallest safeguard on the accused must be construed strictly and not liberally. 8. Having regard to the provisions contained in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4, in my opinion, it must be shown from the record that the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal were sent separately by registered post. I have already observed that there is nothing on the record to show that they were sent separately by registered post. Except the statement of the trial Magistrate in his memorandum at Exhibit 25. Whether this direction has been carried out or not is a mater of evidence. As the evidence stands on the record, it does not show that it has been sent separately by registered post to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Having regard to the provisions of sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 4, in my opinion, there is no compliance of these mandatory provisions and therefore, on this short ground the prosecution must fail. 9. It is urged by Mr. B.S. Deshmukh the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to investigate as to whether there is sufficient compliance of sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 and whether the memorandum and the specimen of seals were sent separately to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. In my opinion it would not be proper to give such an opportunity to fill in the lacuna that inherently exist in the evidence on the record. It is not that they were not aware of the provisions of sub-rule 3 and 4 and Rule 4. In fact arguments were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge and no such request for remand was made at that stage. In my opinion, this request is belated one and deserves no consideration. 10. It is not that they were not aware of the provisions of sub-rule 3 and 4 and Rule 4. In fact arguments were advanced before the learned Sessions Judge and no such request for remand was made at that stage. In my opinion, this request is belated one and deserves no consideration. 10. In the result petition succeeds. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside and the accused is acquitted. Fine if paid be refunded. Rule is made absolute. Bail bond stands cancelled. -----