This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nowgong given on 21.2.80 in C.R. Case No. 2151/78 acquitting the respondents of the charge under section 16(1) (a) (i) & (ii) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for short the "Act". (2) The case of the prosecution is that on 20.3.78 the Area Food Inspector Chandra Kanta Pathak took sample of mustard oil for analysis from Shew Kumar Pareek, the salesman of M/S Maheswari Rice and Oil Mill at Raha. The Public Analyst submitted report stating that the sample did not conform to the standard. After necessary sanction, the salesman Pareek and one Pawan Kumar Maheswari a partner of the firm, were prosecuted. On trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused persons not guilty and the accused persons were acquitted on the charge. Hence this appeal. (3) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the State, I do not propose to interfere with the order of acquittal since this appeal was filed, not so much for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused persons on the facts and circumstances of the case, but for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Court on the question whether violation of rule 16 of the Rules made under the Act is fatal to the case for prosecution. (4) The precautions, which are prescribed in section 11 of the Act and rule 16 are to be observed while taking samples, are for the purpose of preventing effectively from sending any false sample to the Public Analyst. If there is any prejudice caused by the negligence on the part of the authorities concerned in taking or sending the true sample to the Public Analyst the prosecution may have to fail. However, a mere violation of rule 16 would not be fatal to the prosecution. (5) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with the above observation.