Judgment K. D. SHARMA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision filed by Shiv Bhagwan, against judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar dated March 16, 1978, by which his conviction and sentences under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter reference to as the Act, were upheld and maintained. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Sikar, who, by his judgment, convicted the petitioner of the charge under section 7 read with section 16 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the petitioner was that on February 22, 1974, Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Sikar, purchased a sample of milk from him near Kalyan Circle, Sikar. The sample was divided into three equal parts and elchpart was filled in a dry clean bottle after adding 18 drops of formalin to it. All the three bottles were then properly corcked and sealed at the spot. One bottle of sample was given to the petitioner and one bottle was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public Analyst analysed the sample and declared the result of the analysis as follows: fat contents 3. 2% solids non fat 5. 6% can-sugar and starch nil on the basis of the above data, the Public Analyst opined that the sample was adulterated by reason of its containing about 37% of added water. The report of the Public Analyst was sent to the Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Sikar, who upon the receipt of the report, obtained the requisite sanction to prosecute the petitioner under 5. 7 read with 5. 16 of the Act from the competent authority and, thereafter, filed a complaint against him in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. As stated earlier, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above. On appeal by the petitioner against the conviction and maintained the sentences and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this court in revision. ( 3 ) I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. As stated earlier, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above. On appeal by the petitioner against the conviction and maintained the sentences and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this court in revision. ( 3 ) I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Jagdeep Dhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Sikar. Upon pursual of the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of view that there was no compliance by the Food Inspector with the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as Rules. Rule 18 of the Rules provides safeguard to the accused against tampering of the sample taken from him during the course of its transmission to the Public Analyst. It lays down that a copy of the memorandum and specimen of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately either by registered post or by hand through a person delivered to him by any person authorized by the Food Inspector. This rule must be complied with in order to ensure that the Public Analyst analysis the same sample which was taken by the Food Inspector from the accused. In the instant case, it is clear from the statement of PW 4 Dr. Surendra Kumar Brijbasi, Health Officer, acting as Food Inspector, that compliance with Rule 18 was not made inasmuch as the copy of the memorandum and the specimen seal impression were not separately sent to the Public Analyst. The clear admission of Dr. Brijbasi in this behalf is quoted below to show the flargrant breach of the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules: in Form No. 7, no doubt, Dr. Surendra Kumar Brijbasi has made an entry that a copy of this memorandum and a specimen impression of the Seal used to seal the packet is being sent separately through Shri Pir Dux, but, curiously enough Peer Dux did not say a single word about taking a copy of the memorandum, i. e. form No. 7 and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet separately to the Public Analyst. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council. Sikar, vehemently argued before me that Rule 18 of the Rules bas been complied with in this case because the report of the Public Analyst shows that the specimen impression of the seal which was affixed on the bottle of the sample had been sent separately by the Food Inspector. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Sikar, that the Public Analyst clearly mentioned in his report that the sample of the milk sent to him for analysis was properly sealed and fastened and he found the seal intact and the seal contained on the contemnor of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately sent to the Public Analyst and the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the Municipal Council, the aforesaid observations made in the report by the Public Analyst should be treated as conclusive evidence of the fact that the specimen impression of the seal was separately sent by the Food Inspector in compliance with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rules. The above contention has no substance, because these observations were not made by the Public Analyst his own hand. Form No. 3 is a printed for used by the Public Analyst for sending his report. The recitals the seal fixed on the container of the sample tallied with specimen impression of the seal separately seat by the Food Inspector are printed in the form No. 3 (Ex, P. 2), which is the report of the Public Analyst and it appear that the Public Analyst signed the report including these printed recitals mechanically, because when the Food Inspector admittedly did not send the specimen impression of the seal separately to him, how could he say that the seal affixed on the bottle of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent to him by Food Inspector. The referred to above recitals, therefore, appear to be incorrect, in the present case and so it is very difficult for this Court to assume that the official acts were done in a regular way by the Public Analyst. The referred to above recitals, therefore, appear to be incorrect, in the present case and so it is very difficult for this Court to assume that the official acts were done in a regular way by the Public Analyst. The prosecution has led no other evidence to show that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately by the Food Inspector to the Public Analyst. In this state of affairs, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved to the hilt against the petitioner because non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules tells heavily upon the evidentiary of the report of the Public Analyst and no conviction can safely be based on such an evidence. ( 5 ) I, therefore, accept this revision petition filed by Shiv Bhagwan, set aside his conviction and sentences under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and acquit him of the said charge. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled.