M. D. BHATT, J, J. ( 1 ) - This is the State appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused of the offence under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) ON 26. 11. 1977, the Food Inspector had purchased the sample of jaggery from the respondent- accused Kirana Shop. After completing the formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who found same to be adulterated. Hence, the complaint was filed for prosecution of the accused, who abjured the guilt. In this case, against the respondent-accused, the Food Inspector examined himself and one more witness, who had attested certain documents regarding the taking of the sample. This witness, however, did not corroborate the food Inspectors version. The trial Court did hot believe the solitary testimony of the Food Inspector and held, in absence of any corroborative evidence, that the factum of purchase of sample of jaggery was not free from doubt. It further held that section 10 (7) of the Act had also not been complied. Accordingly, the respondent-accused was acquitted. Hence, now, the State appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Penal lawyer Shri Namdeo, appearing for the appellant-State, has urged that irrespective of the fact whether the various provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were complied or not, the respondent-accused deserved to be convicted on the principal ground that the sample purchased from him was found to be adulterated, as per the Public Analysts report. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS advanced can not be sustained. In the first place, there is no corroborative evidence to the Food Inspectors version in the matter of taking of the sample. Witness Mohandas having not corroborated the Food Inspector, the other attesting witness Moti should have been examined and since this was not done, the Food Inspectors version apparently gets doubtful. Then again, what is more important in the case is the fact that the copy of the Public Analysts report is not proved to have been delivered to the respondent-accused at any time after the institution of the prosecution so as to enable him to get the sample further analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Mere bald statement of the Food Inspector in this regard is hardly sufficient. Mere bald statement of the Food Inspector in this regard is hardly sufficient. Thus, the respondent- accused, due to non-compliance of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1956 arid section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was deprived of his available right in the matter of his defence and this was sufficient to justify the respondent accused is acquittal. ( 5 ) IN the result, thus, the State appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed, and the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused is maintained in toto. Appeal dismissed. .