JUDGMENT - S.P. KURDUKAR, J.:--- The State of Maharashtra has filed this Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada on January 27, 1977 in Criminal Case No. 843 of 1974, 2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows : 3. M/s. Issak Ibrahim Co. is a partnership firm consisting of four part­ners. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of the said firm who are hereinafter referred to as the accused persons. This partnership firm carried on the business in grocery articles at Shahada. On July 23, 1974 the Food Inspector, complainant, visited his shop and took samples of three articles from this shop. Out of these samples the present prosecution relates to the sample of ilayachi Dana. According to the prosecution all the four accused persons were present when he drew the samples from their shop. The complainant purchased 450/ gms. of ilayachi dana paying Rs. 9/- towards its price. He divided three equal parts of the sample and each part was filed in clean and dry polythene bags. The mouth of each bag was closed by chemi­cal process. Each bag then was put into three separate brown paper packets. Lables were affixed to each of the packets. Signatures of the panchas were obtained on each of the packets. Each packet then tied by thread, each bag was then sealed by putting a lakh seal. One packet was given to the accused No. 1 and a receipt for the price paid and sample given was obtained from him. After completing these formalities the complainant sent the sample on July 25, 1974 to the Public Analyst, Poona, along with form No. 7 by railway parcel. Specimen impression of the seal was sent by registered A.D. on September 9, 1974 the complainant received the report from the Public Ana­lyst disclosing that the samples was adulterated. After obtaining necessary sanction from the Assistant Commissioner, Nasik, the present prosecution came to be filed against the four accused persons and the firm, accused No. 5. 4. The defence of the accused No.1 is that complainant did visit the shop and purchased ilayachi dana. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 denied the charge levelled against them. According to them they were not present at the relevant time when the Food Inspector visited the shop and drew the sample. 4. The defence of the accused No.1 is that complainant did visit the shop and purchased ilayachi dana. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 denied the charge levelled against them. According to them they were not present at the relevant time when the Food Inspector visited the shop and drew the sample. They, therefore, pleaded that they have not committed any offence and they should be acquitted. Accused No.1 also denied that any of panchanamas were made in his presence or his signature was obtained. 5. The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the evidence of the Food Inspector, Satishkumar Vishwanath in addition to the evidence of two panch witness. It appears that both these panch witness have not supported the prosecution and therefore they were declared hostile witness . The prosecution also relied upon the report of the Public Analyst at Exh. 23. 6. The learned trial Magistrate on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order dated January 27, 1977 in Criminal Case No. 843 of 1974 acquitted all the accused. Against this order of acquittal the State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal this to Court. 7. Mr. N.M. Kachare the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State urged that the order of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the accused is on the basis of the judgment reported in A.I.R 1975 S.C. page 189 (Rajandas G. Pamnani v. State of Maharashtra)1. This judgment is overruled by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C page 933 (State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mahammed)2. It is next urged by Mr. Kachare that the evidence of the food inspector is sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(1) read with Rules 16 and 17 of the prevent on of Food Adulteration Rules. It is urged by Mr. Kachare that the report of the Public Analyst shows that the sample was found to be adulterated and the report of the Public Analyst itself is sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty. 8. Mr. V.B. Ganatra the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused persons in support of the judgment strongly urged that this Court should be slow while interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is urged by him that there are inherent lacunas in the prosecution case. 8. Mr. V.B. Ganatra the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused persons in support of the judgment strongly urged that this Court should be slow while interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is urged by him that there are inherent lacunas in the prosecution case. According to him there is clear breach of section 7 read with Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. He also submitted that from the evidence of the Food Inspector himself it can be clearly proved that he has not followed the mandatory Provisions contained in Rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both the learned Counsel, I have gone through the evidence of the Food Inspector. It is no more in dispute that the Food Inspector has taken the sample on July 23, 1974. The report at Exh. 23 of the Public Analyst was received by the Food Inspector on 9-9-1974. The Food Inspector has admitted in his evidence that he forwarded the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused on 30-10-1974. Relying upon these three dates it is urged by Mr. Ganatra that it was the duty of the food inspector under Clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Preven­tion of Food Adulteration Rules to send the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said report by the Food Inspector. In this case admittedly the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused after one and half month. Form the acknowledgement (Exh. 34) on the record it is clear that the Food Inspector despatched this report on 30th October, 1974 and the same was received by the accused on 2nd November, 1974. It is thus clear that the Food Inspector has committed breach of the provisions contained in Clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Mr. Ganatra strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1978 Mah.L.J. 157, (State of Maharashtra v. Jesit Dosa)3, in which it has been clearly ruled that the provisions or Clause (j) of Rule 9 are mandatory and if there is breach of this provision then the accused is entitled for acquittal. Mr. Ganatra strongly relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1978 Mah.L.J. 157, (State of Maharashtra v. Jesit Dosa)3, in which it has been clearly ruled that the provisions or Clause (j) of Rule 9 are mandatory and if there is breach of this provision then the accused is entitled for acquittal. In view of this judgment of this Court, I hold that the Food Inspector has failed to follow the mandatory provisions contained in Clause (j) of Rule 9 of the Prevention of Food Adul­teration Rules, 1955. In regard to the second contention of Mr. Ganatra that from the evidence of the Food Inspector himself it is clear that he has not followed the procedure laid down in Rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 relating to sending of the samples to the Public Analyst, a strong reliance is placed on the evidence of the Food Inspector who has failed to state that he has sent the samples by registered post in a sealed packet or container along with a memorandum in Form VII. The argument is that the outer cover which is required to be sealed as laid down in Rule 17 is not followed by the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector has not stated a word as to whether he has put the container of sample sealed and the memorandum in Form VII in an outer cover addressed to the Public Analyst. In the absence of this evidence on the record I find that the con­tention of Mr. Ganatra is well founded. This Court has repeatedly held that the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 are mandatory and unless the prosecution establishes that there is compliance of these rules no conviction can be sus­tained by this Court. I, therefore, hold that the accused persons are entitled to acquittal. The order of acquittal is, therefore, confirmed but, however, on different ground. 10. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. ------