JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Merta, dated 11-8-1976 in criminal appeal No. 125/74 by which the appeal of Gulab Chand against his conviction and sentence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, was accepted and he was acquitted of the aforesaid offence on the ground that the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It will not be out of place to mention that Gulabchand Respondent was found guilty of selling adulterated Gur at his shop on 15-6-1978 by Sitaram Food Inspector who thereupon purchased a sample of the Gur for value from the Respondent, and after dividing it into three equal parts put each part in a dry and clean bottle which was properly sealed by him on the spot in the presence of Laxminarain and Gheesulal Morvis. One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and sent a report to the Food Inspector that the sample of Gur sent to him was adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The report of the Public Analyst is Lx. P. 3 on the record and the result of the analysis made by him is as follows:- "Total Sugars (on dry weight basis) 84.21% Sucrose (on dry weight basis) 66.14% Extraneous matter insoluble in water (on dry weight basis) 1.58% Total ash (on dry weight basis) 4.74% Ash insoluble in HCL (on dry weight basis) 0.24% Moisture content 7.85% and am of the opinion that this sample of Gur is adulterated as it does not conform to the prescribed standard of purity." 2. Upon perusal of the report of the Public Analyst the Food Inspector obtained requisite sanction to prosecute the respondent under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act from the competent authority and thereafter filed a complaint against the Respondent in the court of Munsil Magistrate Merta. The learned Magistrate tried the respondent on the complaint of the Food Inspector and came to a conclusion upon evidence adduced in the case that the Respondent was guilty of selling adulterated Gur. The learned Magistrate tried the respondent on the complaint of the Food Inspector and came to a conclusion upon evidence adduced in the case that the Respondent was guilty of selling adulterated Gur. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted and sentenced the Respondent to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half month. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the Respondent preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties was of the view that the Respondent was not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act because the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Gur out of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector was for use as food for human consumption and also on the ground that the Food 'Inspector did not send a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottles to the Public Analyst separately either by registered post or through any person authorised by him and so it could not be said that the Public Analyst analysed the same sample of Gur which was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the Respondent. As against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta, the State has come up in appeal to this Court. 3. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. M.D. Purohit learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. P.C. Mathur learned counsel for the respondent. 4. From a bare perusal of the statement of Laxmi Narain Motbir P,W. 1 it is evident that the Gur of which the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the Respondent was known as "Raskat" Gur which was not meant or used for human consumption but, was for use as a food for animals. Another Motbir in whose presence the sample was taken is Gheesu Lal P. W. 2. In his cross-examination Gheesulal denied to have any knowledge whether the Gur of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector was "Raskat" Gur, but subsequently in his re-cross, this witness admitted that the sample contained in bottle Ex. Another Motbir in whose presence the sample was taken is Gheesu Lal P. W. 2. In his cross-examination Gheesulal denied to have any knowledge whether the Gur of which sample was taken by the Food Inspector was "Raskat" Gur, but subsequently in his re-cross, this witness admitted that the sample contained in bottle Ex. 1 was "Raskat" Gur which is used as a food for cows. Apart from the evidence of the Motbirs, Sitaram, Food Inspector also admitted in his further cross-examination dated 15-12-77 that he took a sample of "Raskat" Gur but he did not taste it nor was he informed by the Respondent that it was "Raskat" Gur. In view of these admissions of the two Motbirs and the Food Inspector it cannot be safely held that the Gur of which sample was taken was for use as food for human consumption. Unless the sample of Gur fell within the definition to food given in clause (v) of section 2 of the Act no offence is made out under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act even though the Gur is found adulterated upon analysis by the Public Analyst. In the instant case the Gur of which sample was taken was a "Raskat" Gur that was meant or used as food for animals and not for human consumption. Consequently the Sessions Judge committed no error in acquitting the Respondent of the offence of having been in possession of adulterated Gur for sale at his shop. 5. Another infirmity in the prosecution case pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment was that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove that the Public Analyst analysed the same sample of Gur which was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the Respondent. The reason given by the Sessions Judge for holding the above view is that no compliance was made by the Food Inspector with the provisions of R.I. 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules inasmuch as no copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the bottle was sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or through any person authorised by him. The above reason given out by the Sessions Judge is well founded. The above reason given out by the Sessions Judge is well founded. We have carefully gone through the statement of Sitaram Food Inspector who did not say a single word that he had sent any copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any person authorised by him. R.I. 18 of the Rules deals with the procedure of sending a sample to the Public Analyst, non-compliance with the provisions of this R.I. adversely affects the evidentiary value of the report of the Public Analyst and conviction based on such a report cannot be sustained. It is no doubt true that in his report the Public Analyst mentioned that the sample of Gur sent to him was properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal intact and unbroken. He further observed that the seal of the packet was similar to the seal impression affixed on the memorandum, but curiously enough no copy of the memorandum has been placed on the record by the Food Inspector to show that specimen impression of the seal which he used to seal the bottle of Gur was taken on any paper and was sent to the Public Analyst separately. 6. Consequently we do not find any substantial ground for interference with the order of acquittal of the Respondent passed by the Sessions Judge, 7. The appeal filed by the State has no force and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed *******