On 15.5.78 the Area Food Inspector, Jorhat collected sample of mustard oil from a sealed tin from the shop in question and on 19.5.78 sent it to the Public Analyst for examination. On 26.6.78 the Public Analyst sent a report and according to the said report the saponification value was found to be 17S.7 whereas according to the item A. 17.06 in Appendix-B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1954, for short, The Rules' such saponification value in case of mustard oil should be between 168 to 177 thus there was an increase of 1.7 of the saponificaction value of the mustard oil and accordingly the accused, petitioner, his father and the manufacturer were prosecuted under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short, ‘the Act’. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat by the judgment and order dated 8.1085 passed in case No. C. R. 1436/1978 found the father of the accused petitioner and the manufacturer of the mustard oil not guilty and acquitted then accordingly. However, the learned trial court found the present petitioner guilty under section 16 read with section 7 of the Act and convicted him accordingly. The learned trial court sentenced the accused person to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. The abortive appeal was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.86 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4 (4) of 1985. Hence, the present petition. 2. The first contention of Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction is bad in law as rule 14 of the Rules, which is mandatory was not complited with. In M. Mohammed V. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1978 (1) F. A. C., 114 the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the said Rule 14 is mandatory and not directory. Rule 14 provides the procedure for manner of sending of sample for analysis. It inter alia, provides that sample of food for purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or any other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. It inter alia, provides that sample of food for purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or any other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. Thus is would appear that elaborate provisions have been made in the manner of sending the sample for analysis, the object being that the sample collected by the Food Inspector should not come in contact with any other foreign substance including moisture before analysis of the sample, as collected, by the Public Analysis. This elaborate provisions have been made keeping in view the principle of our criminal jurisprudence. In other works, the Act which is for prevention of adulteration of food, a social evil, should be strictly enforced and guilty person should be dealt with ruthlessly, but in doing so there should be adequate protection so that innocent persons are not punished. The Public servants whose duty is to enforce the Act should follow the mandate of legislation as contained in the Act and the Rules scrupulously and thoroughly for the purpose of achieving, the above object. I am of the opinion that the protection given to the accused person under Rule 14 of the Rules is mandatory as any deviation may cause prejudice to the accused and I respectfully agree with the law laid down in M. Mohammed ( supra ). 3. The learned trial Court in his judgment observed as follows : "The mustard oil thus purchased was equally divided into three parts and each part was poured in a clean and dry bottle. The bottle were packed and wrapped with paper, Label with serial number and code number were affixed." Without referring to the evidence the Food Inspector, P. W. I from the judgment of the learned trial Court, it is clear that the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules were not complied with. As a matter of abundant caution, I have also perused the evidence of P. W. 1, the Food Inspector and I find that (the Food Inspector did not take adequate protection as provided under the Rule 14 to seal carefully the bottles. As a matter of abundant caution, I have also perused the evidence of P. W. 1, the Food Inspector and I find that (the Food Inspector did not take adequate protection as provided under the Rule 14 to seal carefully the bottles. Under the above circumstances, I hold , that there was non compliance of mandatory Rule 14 as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on this ground the conviction suffered from illegality? 4. The second point urged is that the saponification value was in­creased only by 1.7 and from this increase, it cannot be held that the mustard oil was adulterated. In support Mr. Sahewalla has drawn my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Tezpur Municipal Board V.Mohanlal Tibriwal and another, 1977 (2) F.A.C. 167, wherein it was held that with the lapse of time oil and other fatty subs­tances start deteriorating. In this case the Court referred to the Book “the Chemical Analysis of Foods" by David Pearson, 6th edition to arrive at the above observation. Mr. Das, learned Public Prosecutor fairly states that due to long storage saponification value may increase in case of mustard oil and he also accepts the fact that in the present proceeding the increase of saponification value was negligible. However, Mr. Das strongly urged that in the above case there was a delay of one year whereas in the instant proceeding there was delay of only 42 days and as such during the above period there cannot any increase of the saponifi­cation value. In absence of any expert evidence from the prosecution or any authority on the point, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das, the within the period of 42 days increase of saponification value by 1.7is not scientifically possible. I therefore, reject the contention of Mr. Das, on the ground that there (is a chance of increase of saponification value by 1.7 within the aforesaid period of delay, I hold that (we benefit should "go to the accused petitioner. On this ground also/the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 5. In making the Rules, (elaborate provisions have been made in, Part-V regarding sealing, fastening and despatch of sample so that adequate protection is available to the accused Rule 16 of the Rules provides for manner of packing and sealing of such samples. On this ground also/the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. 5. In making the Rules, (elaborate provisions have been made in, Part-V regarding sealing, fastening and despatch of sample so that adequate protection is available to the accused Rule 16 of the Rules provides for manner of packing and sealing of such samples. According to said Rule 16, four steps have to be taken for taking and sealing the sample and the said steps are elaborate in nature. From the evidence of P.W.I, the Food Inspector, I find that the sample was tied only with a thread. Unfortunately the Food Inspector completely ignored the said provisions of Rule 16 without considering whether Rule 16 is mandatory or directory, I am of the opinion that minimum protection given to the accused under Rule 16 was not made available. On this ground also the conviction cannot stand? I 6. It is unfortunate that the petition has to be allowed due to calausness of the public officer performing a very important duty of checking adulteration of food. I hope and trust that the State Government will take adequate steps to train the officers entrusted with performing their duties of enforcing the provisions of the Act and Rules so that this social evil can be removed from our Society, 7. Relying on a decision of this Court reported in State of Assam vs. Sankarlal Sarma and another, 1967 F. A. J. 126, Mr. Sahewalla urged that considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 1978 the accused-petitioner need not be sent to jail. Mr. Das, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed and in support has drawn the attention of this Court to ratio laid down in the following decisions namely Inderjeet vs. State of U. P., A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1867 ; State of A. P. V. S. R, Rangademappa A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1492 and Sanatan Sahu V. State of Orissa, 1982 Cri: L. J. 936 (Orissa High Court). As I have already held that the impugned judgment cannot stand in view of the illegality, I need not consider this aspect to the matter in this proceeding. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. The accused petitioner is discharged from the liability of the bail bond.