JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal against the judgment dated September 30, 1977 passed by the learned Chit f Judicial Magistrate Sikar. Under the aforesaid judgment the learned Magistrate acquitted the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, the Act). 2. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the accused has a shop in Jatiya Bazar Sikar under the name and style of Kanhaiyalal Sua lal and deals in Deshi-Ghee. On September "3, 1975, the Food Inspector Shri Govindlal Mathur PW I took sample of pure ghee after paying its price Rs 9.90 for 450 gms ghee. He divided the same into three equal parts and one sample was sent to Public Analyst where the sample reached on September 25 1975 and was analysed on October 10, 1975 and was found to be adulterated as it did not conform the prescribed standard of purety A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector after getting sanction The accused respondent took the plea that ghee was not meant for sale and the sample was taken from Ghee which was mixed with butter. 3. A look at the judgment of the learned trial court will show that the accused-respondent has been acquitted on the ground of non-compliance with rule 18 Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short, the Rules). Rule 18 of the Pules reads as under: "Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately-A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day." A bare reading of the rule 18 will show that it provides that copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packed shall be sent in a sealed packet separately to the public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day. Sending of 'the copy of the memorandum and a specimen, impression of the seal to the Public Analyst is mandatory but the mode of delivery of the aforesaid document is not mandatory. Sending of 'the copy of the memorandum and a specimen, impression of the seal to the Public Analyst is mandatory but the mode of delivery of the aforesaid document is not mandatory. In the instant case a oak at Ex P/4 memorandum to Public Analyst will show that there is a note that a copy of memo and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of the sample is being sent separately by hand." Therefore it can be said that alongwith memorandum in form VII, the Food Inspector separately sent a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet of sample by hand. The learned trial court has taken a view that if form No. Vll is sert along with sample through a person and the same person carries a copy of memo in form VII and deliver it by hand to the Public Analyst, then there is non-compliance with rule 18 of the Rules. The view of the learned trial court is not in accordance with law. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Gopaklas and aur. 1985 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 192 the Madhya Pradesh High Court dealt with the similar question and said that tried word `separately used in rule 18 has been attended to convey the sense that the specimen of the memorandum and impression of the seal have to be smt 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 sample 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. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid view. Therefore, the view of the learned trial court was not correct that there has been contravention of rule 18 of the Rules. 4. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid view. Therefore, the view of the learned trial court was not correct that there has been contravention of rule 18 of the Rules. 4. The law is well settled that in the appeal against acquittal the accused-respondent has right to urge other points also which were decided against him by the trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there is contravention of Sec. 0 of the Act inasmuch as the written consent was given to the Food Inspector, but in fact the case was instituted not by Food Inspector, but by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor attached to the court He therefore contends that the order taking cognizance against the accused respondent is in contravention of Section 20 of the Act and therefore this Court should not interfere in the judgment of acquittal. It may be stated that the question whether the filing of the complain by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor and not by the Food Inspector in whose name the written consent has been given is in accordance with law or not. is subject to the reference made to the larger Bench. In the present case the complaint was filed by the Asstt. Public Prosecutor. It was a case prior to the period of 1976 when Sec- 16 was amended. I have made a reference to Larger Bench on the question whether by filing the complaint by Asstt. Public Prosecutor and not by the food Inspector the trial of the case vitiated. In a case which is prior to the amendment made in Section 16, I do not like to interfere in the Judgment of acquittal, though I do not agree with the learned trial court that there has been contravention of rule 18 of the Rules. 5. Consequently, for the reasons aforesaid, I do not like to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The State appeal is dismissed.State appeal dismissed. *******