JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is the appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur against the acquittal of the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under section 7 (1)/16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. ( 2. ) THE respondents-accused were admittedly the owners of the hotel known as "shyamsundar Hindu Hotel" situate at Hospital Ward, Raipur. On 8-10-1984, the Food Inspector Bari had purchased the sample of Bundi (a kind of sweets) at the said shop for purposes of analysis. After completing the necessary formalities, the same was sent for examination to the public analyst, who opined that the prohibited coaltar dye had been used for colouring; and as such the sample of Bundi was found adulterated (Ex. P-5 ). Accordingly the respondents-accused were put up for trial. They abjured the guilt. The trial Court, no doubt, found that the sample of Bundi was sold, to the Food Inspector and that the sample on analysis by the Public analyst, was found to be adulterated. However, the trial Court found that rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, which was mandatory in nature, was not complied with, inasmuch as, copy of the memorandum in Form VII and the specific impression of seal had not been sent to the Public Analyst separately, from the sealed container of the sample for analysis. The mandatory provision having not been complied with, the respondents-accused were acquitted of the offence in question. Hence, now the present appeal. ( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has urged that the trial Court was wrong in holding that (i) the sealed container of the sample and (ii) copy of the memorandum together with the specimen impression of seal were both not sent separately to the Public Analyst. It is urged in this connection that although one and the same person had personally delivered both the container of sample as well as the specimen impression of the seal to the Public Analyst but he had carried both these separately without jumbling up all items in one packet as is evident from the Food inspectors oral testimony and the particular letter sent to the Public analyst. This argument is vehemently controverted by the respondents counsel in the light of the evidence on record. This argument is vehemently controverted by the respondents counsel in the light of the evidence on record. It is further stated that there being no proof regarding adding of preservative to the sample of Bundi by the Food Inspector, the same would have naturally become unfit for analysis and as such, the Public Analysts report is without any consequence. ( 4. ) I have considered the arguments on both sides. So far as the question of adding of preservative is concerned, the provision for the same is Rule 19 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Preservative is necessary to maintain the condition of the sample to be such as to be suitable for analysis. Had the condition of the sample been deteriorated, the public Analyst would have reported so in his report and would not have proceeded with the analysis, but on the contrary, the Public Analysts report Ex. P-5 clearly states that "that the sample was in a condition, fit for analysis". Therefore, the contention of the respondents counsel is devoid of any merit. ( 5. ) NOW, coming to the argument advanced by the appellants learned counsel in the matter of compliance of Rule 18, it is, no doubt, true that rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is mandatory in nature. This rule has to be read with Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules. Rule 17 relates to the sending of the sealed container of one part of the sample together with the memorandum in Form VII to the Public Analyst whereas Rule 18 ibid relates to sending separately the copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal which might have been used for sealing the container of the sample. Reading Rules 17 and 18 together, it is clear that the word "separately" used in Rule 18 has been intended to convey that the specimen of the memorandum and impression of the seal have to be sent independently of the articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17. Reading Rules 17 and 18 together, it is clear that the word "separately" used in Rule 18 has been intended to convey that the specimen of the memorandum and impression of the seal have to be sent independently of the articles that are required to be sent under Rule 17. As long as the copy of the memorandum that is required to be sent under Rule 18 is not sent together, in the sense that all the articles are not sent in the same packet or same cover as the articles referred to in Rule 17 and the memorandum which is required to be sent under Rule 18 is sent independently in a different cover, notwithstanding the fact that both are taken to the analyst by the same person, they, must be said to have been sent independently of each other. The manner of taking two packets by the same individual cannot be said to contravene the provisions of Rule 18 : Kantaben Champakali v. D. Y. Mistry, food Inspector, 1978 FAJ 73 Guj. ( 6. ) IN the present case, the Food Inspector Bari has clearly deposed that he had sent the copy of the memorandum and the specimen seal independently of the packet containing the sample, although both had been sent at one and the same time through one individual only (Paras 2 and 3 of P. W. 1 ). His such averment is found to be corroborated by the recitals of the copy of memorandum (Ex. P-4) wherein the factum of sending the copy of memorandum and the specimen of the seal separately i. e. independently of the sample, has been specifically mentioned. This fact is further reinforced by the recitals in the Public Analysts report where too it has been stated that the sample had been received by him separately and independently of the specimen impression of the seal. It would, thus, be seen that Rule 18, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was fully complied with. Sending at all these packets through one and the same person does not vitiate the compliance of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules. It has been held in State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Das Jain, 1981 FAC 291. It would, thus, be seen that Rule 18, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules was fully complied with. Sending at all these packets through one and the same person does not vitiate the compliance of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules. It has been held in State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Das Jain, 1981 FAC 291. that: "it is immaterial if both these packets are handed over to one and the same person or sent to the Public Analyst at one and the same time through one agency. The literal meanings of the word separately used in the context also do not give any other indication. " Thus, the trial Court was wrong in holding that Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules had not been complied with. ( 7. ) RULE 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules having, thus, been fully complied with and the Public Analysts report clearly establishing that the prohibited coaltar dye had been used for colouring the bundi in question, the respondents-accused were liable to be convicted of the offence in question. Hence, setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the respondents-accused deserve to be convicted of the offence in question. However, since the offence committed is of a period about a decade old, it does not appear just and proper to award any sentence of imprisonment against the respondents-accused after so many years and the ends of justice would be fully met if the sentence of fine alone is awarded. ( 8. ) IN the result, thus, the appeal is allowed. Setting aside the order of acquittal, it is ordered that the respondents-accused be and are convicted of the offence of adulteration punishable under section 7 (1) /16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and be and are each sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand) and in default of fine, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The whole fine amount be paid in the Court of Civil Judicial Magistrate, Raipur on or by 15-9-1984 or by such date as the Civil Judicial Magistrate may extend in his discretion, failing which the respondents-accused be remanded to judicial custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment in default of fine. Appeal allowed.