JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellate Court has wrongly stated that the Petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court under the aforesaid section read with Section 7 of the said Act, but, in fact, the Petitioner has been charged u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Prosecution case is that on 23-8-1975 at about 10.30 a.m., the Food Inspector P.W. 1 inspected the shop of the Petitioner at Balubazar, Cuttack town and found the Petitioner to have stored Pan Masala for sale in his shop for human consumption. As he, suspected the article to be adulterated, he purchased 150 grams of the said Pan Masala as sample by paying a cash of Rs. 3.60 and after serving due notice, he divided the same into three equal parts, packed, fastened and sealed as per the rules. One such packet was given to the Petitioner and one was sent to the public analyst. The third packet was kept by P.W. 1 with himself. The public analyst by his report dated 8th October, 1975 reported that the sample was adulterated due to presence of saccharin. After obtaining necessary sanction, prosecution was launched. The Petitioner has pleaded not guilty to the charge and he has denied to have committed any offence. He has further stated that he never sells Pan Masala loose, but always he sells the same in sealed Diba which he gets from the manufacturers. 3. Two witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely, P.W. 1 the Food Inspector and P.W. 2 the peon of the Food Inspector. According to P.W. 1, 150 grams of Pan Masala was purchased by him. He also states that he purchased three packets of Masala and a memo to that effect was prepared as per Ext. 3. This memo contains signature of two persons as witnesses nut of whom P.W. 2 is one and the other person has not been examined in the case. He also states that he purchased three packets of Masala and a memo to that effect was prepared as per Ext. 3. This memo contains signature of two persons as witnesses nut of whom P.W. 2 is one and the other person has not been examined in the case. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Act have not been complied with, inasmuch as independent witnesses have not been asked at the time of purchase and preparations of packets. P.W. 1 states that he wanted the outsiders to be witnesses, but they refused. P.W. 2 has stated that none of the nearby shopkeepers were asked to be witnesses. P.W. 2 has further stated that some outsiders were present, but when they were asked to be witnesses, they refused. P.W. 1 has stated that along with P.W. 2 another person has also signed. A comparison of the evidence of these two witnesses clearly throws doubt on the prosecution case. P.W. 1's evidence as to preparation of packets and division of the Pan Masala purchased by him appears to be contusing. He has stated that he purchased three packets and divided the Masala into three parts. He has never stated that after purchasing the packets he mixed up the Masala and then divided the same into three parts. Therefore, non-examination of independent witnesses in this respect has a material bearing on the case. It is not a case where the evidence of P.W. 1 can be said to be unimpeachable and reliable. If it would have been so, then the question of non-examination of any independent witness would have been of no importance. The purpose of preparation of packets or bottles and sealing the same and to get the same done in presence of independent witnesses is to ensure bona fides d the action of the Food Inspector and to lend assurance to the examination by the public analyst. In other words, prosecution has to establish before the Court, for the satisfaction of the Court, that the Food Inspector prepared three separate packets, sealed the same and while the packets were prepared the containers were cleaned and there was no chance of any leakage as examined by the independent persons available in the locality and out of those packets one was sent to the public analyst for examination. But the evidence led in this case by the prosecution is not free from doubt. The punishment for such offence is very heavy and it is absolutely necessary that the prosecuting agency should be very cautious in their action for launching the prosecution. 4. The next contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules were not followed, inasmuch the specimen seal was not sent separately by registered post. The purpose of this rule is that the public analyst is to be convinced what particular article he was going to examine and the accuracy of the packet or the bottle is to be ascertained by him. This Court in The State v. Madhusudan Ram 31 (1965) C.L.T. 1008, has held that the evidence as to whether the Food Inspector in compliance of Rule 18, has sent to the public analyst a specimen impression of the seal used by him is to be proved so as to ensure the assurance of the seal or the sample sent to the public analyst by comparison with the impression of the seal sent by the Food Inspector. In the same line ale also the decisions reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kapoor Chand and Belgaum Borough Municipality v. Shridhar Shankar Kundri AIR 1968 Mys. 196 . The Mysore decision has also been followed in Gela Hira Rabari Vs. S.V. Pandya and Another and by the Bombay High Court in The State of Maharashtra v. Laxman N. Khamkar 1977 Cr.L.J. 1485. The Patna High Court has also followed the very same principle in Daitari Mahto v. State 1971 Cr.L.J. 129. The opposite party also relies on a decision of this Court reported in State v. Satyabadi Jena 1974 (1) C.W.R. 499, wherein it has been held that the provision is not mandatory but directory. It has also been held that the object of the said rule is to ensure the fact that the food materials which were seized for the required purpose were actually the materials analysed and examined by the public analyst at the other end. That being so, though the rules are not of mandatory nature the persons concerned with and referred to in the said rules should spare no pains to follow the provisions of those rules as best as possible. In the instant case. That being so, though the rules are not of mandatory nature the persons concerned with and referred to in the said rules should spare no pains to follow the provisions of those rules as best as possible. In the instant case. P.W. 1 does not anywhere say that he had sent the sample seal in a registered cover separately to the public analyst. In the absence of such evidence from the side of the prosecution and in view of the decisions referred to above, it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubts that the seals on the sample were examined by the public analyst and he was assured of the position. In Satyabadi case 1974 (1) C.W.R. 499, the public analyst was also examined by the prosecution and the Court held that in absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts. 5. It is contended by the Petitioner that Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules has not been complied with, inasmuch as the requisite quantity to be sent to the public analyst has not been sent by the Food Inspector. According to the provision of that rule, 200 grams is the quantity of the article to be sent to the public analyst. But in the instant case, P.W. 1 purchased on by 150 grams, divided the same into three equal parts and sent only 50 grams to the public analyst. If the quantity sent is less, it is for the analyst to see whether it is sufficient for his analysis 'or not. In State of Kerala and Others Vs. Alasserry Mohammed and Others it has been held that the whole object of Section 11 and Rule 22 is to find out by a correct analysis, subject to further verifications and tests by the Director of the Central Laboratory or other wise, as to whether the sample of food is adulterated or not. If the quantity sent to the public analyst, even though it is less than that prescribed, is sufficient and enables the public analyst to make a correct analysis, then merely because the quantity sent was not in strict compliance with the rule will not result in the nullification of the report and obliterate its evidentiary value. If the quantity sent is less, it is for his analysis or not. If the quantity sent is less, it is for his analysis or not. If, he finds it insufficient, there is an end of the matter. If, however he finds it sufficient, but due to one reason or the other, either because of further tests or otherwise, it is shown that the report of the public analyst based upon the short quantity sent to him is not trustworthy or beyond doubt, the case may fail. If the object is frustrated by the sending of the short quantity by the Food Inspector to the public analyst, it is obvious, that the case may end in acquittal. But if the object is not frustrated and is squarely and justifiably achieved without any shadow of doubt, then It will endanger public health to acquit offenders on technical grounds which have no substance. The rule is directory and not mandatory. It, however, does not mean that it is open to the Food Inspector to violate the rule. He should always he cautious in complying with the rules as far as possible and should not sent a lesser quantity of sample than prescribed to the public analyst unless there be a sufficient reason for doing so. The word "approximate" in Rule 20 does indicate the directory nature of the rule but does not necessarily militate against the view that the rule is mandatory. This expression is meant to convey that the quantity to be supplied must be in the close vicinity of the quantity specified. If the quantity supplied is sufficient and enables the public analyst to do his duty of making a correct analysis, it would be inferred that the rule has been substantially complied with, as the purpose of the rule has been achieved. In the instant case, the public analyst did not find any difficulty relating to the quantity sent, though less than the requisite quantity was sent. It is a matter of regret that the Food Inspector did not look to the requirements of the rule and the quantity sent is not even in close vicinity of the required quantity to be sent to the analyst. The quantity to be sent to the analyst according to rule is 200 grams; whereas in the present case the Food Inspector purchased only 150 grams of the Pan Masala and sent 50 grams for analysis. The quantity to be sent to the analyst according to rule is 200 grams; whereas in the present case the Food Inspector purchased only 150 grams of the Pan Masala and sent 50 grams for analysis. As the analyst did not find any difficulty in the examination on the quantity sent to him, the trial is not vitiated, but the conduct of the Food Inspector in sending only 50 grams for analysis, in such circumstances, cannot be appreciated. 6. The Petitioner has been charged for commission of offence u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The provision of Clause (i) of Section 16(1)(a) at the time of initiation of the proceeding was that the article of food must be adulterated or misbranded or the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority in the interest of public health. The other Clause (ii) was that any article of food other than an article of food referred to in Sub-clause (i) must be in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder. In the amendment of 1976, the prohibition of sale under any provision of the Act or any Rules made thereunder was not present at the time of initiation of the proceeding. The definition of the word "adulterated" is to be found in Section 2(i). In the instant case, the allegation against the Petitioner is that he was selling Pan Masala in which saccharin had been added. This does not come under any of the requirements of the definition "adulterated" in Section 20, as it stood before the amendment of 1976 My attention was drawn to Rule 47 of the Rules which prohibits addition of saccharin. But such a case will be covered by Clause (ii) of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act as it stood at that rime. In other words, it means that sale of any other food article which is prohibited under the Rules is an offence. But the Petitioner has not been charged for that offence. He has been charged for selling adulterated food article as defined in Section 20 of the Act and the penal section is 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, but not Clause (ii) of the aforesaid section. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction of the Petitioner is also not sustainable. But the Petitioner has not been charged for that offence. He has been charged for selling adulterated food article as defined in Section 20 of the Act and the penal section is 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act, but not Clause (ii) of the aforesaid section. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction of the Petitioner is also not sustainable. On the aforesaid analysis, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond all shades of reasonable doubt and also the conviction is not sustainable. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner are set aside. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The bail bond is charged. Final Result : Allowed