(1) RESPONDENT was the. Manager of a tea shop at Nanded. On 27/02/1974 the local Food Inspector made a statutory purchase of pedas, a variety of sweet. The Public Analyst on examination found presence of coal tar dye of prohibited variety and launched prosecution for offences punishable under S. 16(1)(a)(j) on 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act both against the proprietor as also the Manager of the tea shop. The trial court acquitted the proprietor and that acquittal has become final. The Manager was convicted by the trial court, but in the appeal he was acquitted. The State preferred an appeal against that acquittal, but the High court dismissed the appeal in limine. That is how this appeal by special leave has come against acquittal of the Manager. (2) IN spite of service of notice, the respondent ha? not chosen to appear in this court. (3) THE learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellate court went wrong in acquitting the respondent-Manager by holding that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act were mandatory and noncompliance of the requirements fatally affected the prosecution. (4) ON a perusal of the judgment and after analysis of the materials placed before us, we are inclined to agree with the conclusion of the appellate court which has been upheld by the High court by summarily dismissing the appeal. Admittedly in the present case a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet referred to in Rule 17 were sent by registered post to the Public Analyst. Rule 18 authorises that these materials can be sent to the Public Analyst either by registered post or otherwise delivered to him. In the present case the mode of despatch to the Public Analyst was stated to be by registered post. The appellate court took the view that when the prosecution came with the story that the material has been despatched by registered post, it was to establish its case of such despatch and did not accept the version of the prosecution in the absence of the postal receipt. What the appellate court has found is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the documents referred to in Rule 18 had been separately sent. What the appellate court has found is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the documents referred to in Rule 18 had been separately sent. That led to the conclusion that there was non-compliance with the scheme covered in Rules 17 and 18 of the Rules. Counsel for the appellant does not dispute that it is mandatory to have the materials in Rules 17 and 18 separately sent to the Public Analyst. We accept that there is a purpose behind this requirement and when there is non-compliance, the prosecution is to fail. We are satisfied that in the prevent case the acquittal is based on the finding that the prosecution has failed to establish despatch of the materials referred to in Rule 18 separately by registered post. We are of the view that the acquittal was thus justified. -The appeal is accordingly dismissed.