JUDGMENT :- This judgment disposes of Criminal Revision Application No.320 of 1981 as also Criminal Revision Application No.321 of 1981 as both the applications arise out of common evidence and a common judgment and parties also are identical. 2. The petitioner in both the Revision Applications Ramsharan Dwarkadas Gupta has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dated 14th April, 1981 dismissing his appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 30th August, 1977. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that on 16th Sept., 1975 at about 4.00 P.M. Deoram Kisan Nehete (P.W.1), the Food Inspector, employed in the Food and Drugs Department of the Government of Maharashtra along with Drugs Inspector Pandit and Panch witness G.G. Sohani visited the pre-mises or Messrs. Mathuraprasad Kheduram, situated at Joshi Nivas, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Bombay. Nehete found the petitioner present in the shop. Nehete dis-closed his identity as also the purpose of his visit. He intimated in Form VI his intention of drawing samples of pickles which were on sale in the shop for the purpose of ana-lysis. Nehete stated that the firm of Messrs. Mathuraprasad Kheduram was engaged in the business of manufacturing pickles. Nehete purchased 900 grms. of Amba-Limbu pickle for Rs. 2.50 p. as also 900 grms. of Amba pickle for Rs. 2.50 p. The petitioner passed two separate receipts acknowledging the amount received from the Food In-spector. The Food Inspector has produced two duplicates of Form VI as also two receipts which were marked as Ext. 'A', Exhi-bit A-1 and Ext. 'B' and Ext. B-1 respective-ly. Each of the receipts and the duplicate forms bore the signature of the Panch wit-nesses and the thumb mark of the accused. The accused also passed a cash-memo which has been marked as Ext. 'C'. The Cash-memo was also signed by the Panch wit-nesses as also bore the thumb mark of the accused. The Food Inspector thereafter divided each of the two samples into three equal parts, put them in dry clean bottles, wrapped them in brown paper, folded the top and bottom ends inside, pasted the labels tied by thread and sealed them. He took the signatures of the Panch witnesses as also the thumb mark of the petitioner on the labels. One bottle of each sample was given to the petitioner. He took the signatures of the Panch witnesses as also the thumb mark of the petitioner on the labels. One bottle of each sample was given to the petitioner. On the next day i.e, on 17th Sept., 1975 Nehete delivered the two bottles containing Amba pickle and Amba-Limbu pickle along with Form VII to the Clerk of the Public Analyst. The Food In-spector obtained receipts for the delivery of these samples. 4. Nehete received the report of the Pub-lic Analyst in respect of the two samples on 24th Oct. 1975. He then forwarded copies of the two reports to the present petitioner on 24th Oct., 1975 and obtained his acknow-ledgment. Thereafter he filed a complaint with the Crime Branch (Drugs Control). The same has been treated as the First In-formation Report and marked as Ext. 'I'. 5. It is the prosecution case that the peti-tioner did not hold a valid licence for manufacturing and selling pickles. The two sam-ples of Amba pickle and Amba-Limbu pickle were found to be adulterated inas-much as coal tar dye was found in excess of the standard quantity laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The Food and Drugs Inspector thereafter obtained sanction to prosecute the accused from the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration. The sanction in the two cases has been marked as Ext. 'K' and Ext. K-1. 6. The petitioner was tried by the learn-ed Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay. The accused was con-victed of the offence under S.7(i) read with S.2(i)(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and punishable under S.16 of the said Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous impri-sonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigor-ous imprisonment for six weeks. The peti-tioner was convicted on the second count under Sec.7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with R.50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rupees 200/-, in default to suffer two weeks further rigorous imprisonment. No separate sen-tence was passed on the third charge under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with R.28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 7. No separate sen-tence was passed on the third charge under Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 read with R.28 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate filed two appeals in the Court of Session at Greater Bombay. The learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 14th April, 1981 was pleased to dismiss the two appeals. 8. The petitioner has now approached this Court in these two Revision Applications in connection with the two appeals in respect of the two articles i.e. Amba pickle and Amba-Limbu pickle. 9. Shri Pradhan, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, has canvassed only one submission of law in these appeals. Shri Pradhan submitted that Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adultera-tion Rules was mandatory in its nature and not directory. He contended that the provi-sions of Rule 16 had not been strictly com-plied with by the Food Inspector Nehete and that being the case the entire procedure of packing and sealing of samples was vitiated and the accused was entitled to be acquitted. Rule 16 referred to the manner of packing and sealing the samples obtained by the Food Inspector from the accused and it laid down various steps to be taken by the Food In-spector after obtaining the samples and be-fore the same were delivered to the Public Analyst for the purpose of analysis. 10. Shri Pradhan has relied on three unreported rulings of this Court wherein it has been held that Rule 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1965 was manda-tory and not merely directory. The first of the rulings relied upon by Shri Pradhan is in Criminal Appeal No.531 of 1975 delivered by Shimpi, J. on 24th Sept., 1976.*That was an appeal by the State filed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeal against acquittal, Shimpi, J. was pleased to observe :- * Reported in (1978) 2 Mah LR 495. In dealing with the appeal against acquittal, Shimpi, J. was pleased to observe :- * Reported in (1978) 2 Mah LR 495. "I am not concerned with the other evi-dence and the contentions raised on behalf of the accused for the purposes of disposing of this matter, because these two points were taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate that the sample was not pasted and there was a clear breach of Rr.14 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which are mandatory and it is established that there is no convincing evi-dence to show that what was examined by the public Analyst was the article sold by the accused to the complainant." 11. The next ruling relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner was in Criminal Appeal No.698 of 1976 delivered by my learned brother Jahagirdar, J. on 12th July, 1978. Jahagirdar, J. after consid-ering the provisions of Rr.16 and 17 and Rr.7 and 18 and after considering various authorities of this Court was pleased to observe as follows :- "If this is so, there is also no difficulty in holding that the requirement of these rules are mandatory. It has been held by this Court that Rr.7 and 18 are mandatory (see Baliram Peru Paul v. State, (1975) 77 Bom LR 350 and also Laxmandas Sarvottamdas Doshi and Co. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 77 Bom LR 408). If Rule 7 is mandatory, it must follow that the provisions of R.17 also are mandatory compliance with which must be directly proved by the prosecution." ……. ……… ………. ………. ……………. ………… ……….. ………. ……… ………… …….. ……… "The container of the sample has to be packed and sealed in the manner provided under Rule 16. The container as per that rule is wrapped and packed in a fairly strong thick paper which itself is secured by means of strong threads. There are four impressions of the seal to be affixed on this paper inside which there is the container. The packet which is now ready after the steps are taken as per Rule 16 is to be again put in an outer cover under R.17. After the sealed packet and the memorandum in Form VII are inserted in the outer cover, the latter in turn has to be sealed. On a harmo-nious reading of all the relevant rules, this interpretation is inevitable." 12. After the sealed packet and the memorandum in Form VII are inserted in the outer cover, the latter in turn has to be sealed. On a harmo-nious reading of all the relevant rules, this interpretation is inevitable." 12. Finally, Shri Pradhan relied on an unreported ruling of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.507 of 1980 delivered by my learned brother Gadgil, J. on 24-1-1983. The learned Judge sitting singly was pleased to observe:- "This evidence would therefore indicate that all the necessary requirements as are contemplated by Rule 16 except the require-ment of sealing the packet or cover at four distinct and clear places have been complied with. It is true that the Public Analyst's re-port (Ext.37) states that the seal affixed on the container and the outer cover of the sam-ple tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent to him by the Food Inspector. It was contended by Shri Patil for the State that this observation of the Public Analyst in his report could be accepted. However, in my opinion, it will be too risky to base a conviction of the accused on the abovementioned statement of the Public Analyst in his report, particularly when the Food Inspector has not stated that the wrap-per or cover containing the sample was sealed at four distinct and clear places as re-quired by R.16. It is for this lacuna that the accused would be entitled to a benefit of doubt and as such the appeal stands dis-missed." 13. Shri Pradhan has contended that the ratio of the above rulings is that the provisions of R.16 are mandatory and if that be so then he has referred me to the evidence of the Food Inspector Nehete to show that the Food Inspector has not strictly complied with the provisions of R.16. 14. In order to appreciate the submission of Shri Pradhan, it will be pertinent at this stage to refer to the provisions of R.16 and thereafter lo the testimony of the Food In-spector in order to find out whether the Food Inspector had complied with the mandatory provisions of that Rule. Rule 16 lays down various steps that a Food Inspector has to take whilst packing and scaling the samples. The manner of packing and sealing the samples has been elaborately laid down in this Rule. Rule 16 is in the following terms:- "16. Rule 16 lays down various steps that a Food Inspector has to take whilst packing and scaling the samples. The manner of packing and sealing the samples has been elaborately laid down in this Rule. Rule 16 is in the following terms:- "16. Manner of packing and sealing the samples- 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 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) Au-thority, shall be passed 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 wit-ness shall be taken in the same manner; (d) The paper cover shall be further se-cured by means of strong twine or thread both above and across the bottle, jar or other container, and the twine or thread shall then be fastened on the paper cover by means of sealing wax on which there shall be at least four distinct and clear impres-sions 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." Now it may be pointed out here that sub-rule (c) of R.16 will not be applicable to the present case for the reason that this sub-rule came into effect from 4-1-1977 by Notification No.GSR4(E), dated 4-1-1977. The offence in the instant case was committed on 16-9-1975. The offence in the instant case was committed on 16-9-1975. Therefore, apart from the provi-sions of sub-rule (c), the provisions of sub-rules (a), (b) and (d) will apply. 15. Now let us see whether the Food In-spector had complied with the necessary steps laid down under this Rule. In his evi-dence Nehete stated:- "I divided each sample in three equal parts. I took each part in a dry clean bottle, wrapped it with brown paper, folded the top and bottom ends inside, pasted labels, tied by thread and duly sealed. I took the signa-ture of Panch witness P.B. Pandit and thumb mark of the accused on labels. I gave one part of each sample to the accused." Now from this cryptic evidence of the Food Inspector it would appear that the requisi-tions contained in sub-rule (a) to the effect that the stopper should be first secured so as to prevent leakage of the contents in tran-sit, was not complied with. The Food In-spector has stated that he had wrapped the bottle with brown paper and to that extent the first part of sub-rule (b) appears to have been complied with. The latter part of sub-rule (b), however, has not been complied with by the Food Inspector. The latter part of sub-rule (b) stated that the ends of the paper should be neatly folded in and affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. All that the Food Inspector has stated is that he had folded the top and bottom ends in-side and pasted labels. He has not stated that he had affixed by means of gum the folded ends of the brown paper. 16. With regard to sub-rule (d) it provid-ed that the paper cover should be secured by means of a strong twine or thread both above and across the bottle, jar or other container, and the twine or thread shall then be 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. Now the Food Inspector has merely stated that he did the thread and duly sealed. Now the Food Inspector has merely stated that he did the thread and duly sealed. Now assuming that the first part of sub-rule (d) has been substantially complied with the second part which calls for four distinct and clear impressions of the seal does not appear to have been complied with for the reason that the Food Inspector merely stated that he had the packet "duly sealed". The last requisition of sub-rule (d) that the ends of the twine or thread should be cover-ed by means of sealing wax bearing the impressions of the seal of the sender, has also not been complied with. 17. It, therefore, appears to me that the requirements of Rule 16 have not even been substantially complied with by the Food In-spector at the time when he recovered the samples and forwarded the same to the Pub-lic Analyst. If once it is held that the pro-visions of Rule 16 are mandatory, and as I have pointed out with reference to the vari-ous authorities that that is so then the non-compliance of the provisions of this Rule would adversely affect the prosecution case. It would cast grave doubt as to the contents of the packet which were received by the Public Analyst. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused and he should be acquitted. 18. In the result, the Rule is made abso-lute in both the Revision Applications. The conviction and sentence passed on the peti-tioner in Case Nos.402/S and 403/S of 1976 are set aside. Bail bonds of the accus-ed to stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, to be refunded. Ordered accordingly.