Judgment : The Counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent are absent. 2. This revision case has been preferred by A-2 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, confirming the conviction and sentence of A-2 in S.T.R. No. 37 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divi-sional Judicial Magistrate, Poilachi. The complaint against the revision petitioner and another accused, who was A-1, was laid by the Food Inspector Peria Nagamam Town Panchayat. The complaint against A-2 was that he committed an offence punishable under sections 7(i) and 2(i)(a)(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act), on the allegation that he had in his possession and sold at 3.30 p.m. on 27th September, 1977 to P.W. 1 the Food Inspector, 660 ml. of milk on his being served with a notice under Form VI and issued the receipt Exhibit P-2 P.W. 1 divided the milk into three equal parts and poured each of them in a bottle and added drops of formalin to each bottles. It does not appear from the evidence of P.W.1 that the bottles were either empty or dry or clean. Thereafter, he corked the bottles and sealed them and obtained the signature ofA-2 on the labels fixed on the cover of each bottle. He sent one such sample bottle to the Public Analyst under Form No. VII (Exhibit P-3). The Public Analyst reported that the result of the analysis done by him showed that the fat content of the sample was 6.5 per cent. and solids-not-fat 7.7 per cent. a freezing point 0.470°C, where as the buffalo milk has a freezing point of 0.535°C. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the sample contained 10 per cent. of added water as calculated from the freezing point. The sample contained 7.7 per cent. solids-not-fat, whereas the solids-not-fat corresponding to a freezing point of 0.535°C works out to 8.6 per cent for the original milk from which the sample has been prepared by adding water. Thereafter, the complaint was filed, a notice under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused. These facts have been spoken to by P.W.1 and accepted by the Courts below. 3. Thereafter, the complaint was filed, a notice under section 13(2) of the Act was sent to the accused. These facts have been spoken to by P.W.1 and accepted by the Courts below. 3. A-1 who was said to be the owner of the milk, was acquitted by the trial Court and A-2 alone was convicted as aforesaid and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months. This conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. This revision has to be allowed on account of the failure of the Food Inspector to observe the necessary formalities, and if he had done, so because of his failure to prove that he observed the necessary formalities. As noted already, the Food Inspector (P.W.1) does not say that the bottles in which he poured the three parts of milk were clean, empty and dry. There is nothing to show that there was no water in the three bottles already when he poured the milk into each of them. 5. Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (to be referred to thereafter as the Rules) lays down the manner of packing and sealing the samples. This rule mandates that “All samples of food sent for analysis shall be packed, fastened and sealed in the following manner, namely: — (a) The stopper shall first be securely fastened so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. (b) The bottle, jar or Other container shall then be completely wrapped in fairly strong thick paper. The ends of the paper shall be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive; (c) A paper slip of the size that goes round completely from the bottom to top of the container, bearing the signature and code and serial number of the Local (Health) Authority, shall be pasted on the wrapper, the signature or the thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken being affixed in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or thumb impression. Provided that in case, the person from whom the sample has been taken refuses to affix his signature or thumb impression, the signature or thumb-impression of the witness shall be taken in the same manner. Provided that in case, the person from whom the sample has been taken refuses to affix his signature or thumb impression, the signature or thumb-impression of the witness shall be taken in the same manner. (d) The paper cover shall be further secured by means of strong twine or thread both above and across the bottle, the jar or other container, and the twine or thread shall then he fastened on the paper cover by means of sealing wax on which there shall be at least four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender, Of which one shall be at the top of the packet, one at the bottom and the other two on the body of the packet. The knots of the twine or thread shall be covered by means of sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender.” Apart from swearing that he divided the milk purchased by him into three equal parts and poured each of them in separate bottles and added drops of formalin and corked the bottles and sealed them, and affixed a label on the cover, P.W.1 has not stated that he did anything else required by rule 16. He has not even stated that the stopper was securely fastened, so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. He does not swear that the bottles were completely wrapped in fairly strong paper and that the ends of the paper were neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. He has not even stated that the stopper was securely fastened, so as to prevent leakage of the contents in transit. He does not swear that the bottles were completely wrapped in fairly strong paper and that the ends of the paper were neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. He has not stated that a paper slip of the size that goes round completely from the bottom to the top of the container, bearing the signature and code and serial number of the Local (Health) Authority, was pasted and wrapped, the signature or the thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken being affixed in such a manner that the paper slip and the wrapper both carried a part of the signature or thumb-impression, and that the paper cover was further secured by means of a strong twine or thread, both above and across the bottle, the jar or other container, and the twine or thread was then fastened on the paper cover by means of sealing wax on which there were at least four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender, of which one was at the top of packet, one at the bottom and the other two on the body of the packet. He has not stated that the knots of the twine or thread were covered by means of sealing wax bearing the impression of the seal of the sender. Thus, he has violated the procedure laid down in rule 16 of the Rules. 6. Section 11 of the Act requires that when the Food Inspector takes a sample of food for analysis, he should send one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority and send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 11 and sub-sections (2-A) and (2-E) of section 13. It does not appear from the evidence of P.W.1 that he gave intimation to the Local (Health) Authority about the despatch of one of the parts for analysis by the Public Analyst or that he sent the remaining two parts to the Local Authority for the purposes aforesaid. 7. Thus, the Food Inspector has violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above in every possible and conceivable manner. 7. Thus, the Food Inspector has violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above in every possible and conceivable manner. It is high time that the Local (Health) Authority concerned issues instructions to the Food Inspectors employed within its jurisdiction to strictly observe the procedure laid down in the Act and the Rules framed there under. In view of the statutory violations referred to above. I regretfully allow this revision and set aside the conviction of the revision petitioner under sections 7(i) and 2(i)(a)(i) read with section 16 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.300 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, and acquit the accused. The fine amount, if already paid, will be refunded to the accused.