JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal under Section 370 (iv) and (v) Cr. P. C. against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate Tonk, in Cr. Case No. 505/77 dated 28th Sept., 1979 has been filed by the appellant whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted. 2. It may be briefly stated that the accused persons were partners in firm Vinod Oil Mill, Newai, and were engaged in manufacture of ground-nut-oil. They were charged to have committed offence punishable under Section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for selling 50 tins of adulterated ground-nut-oil to M/s Jagdish Prasad, Deoli, through one Ramesh Chand, vide cash memo no. 630, dated August 26, 1976. The tins were sold by accused-respondent No. 1 Khemchand, a partner of the said firm. 3. It is not necessary to go in details of the facts so far as the disposal of of this appeal is concerned. 4. The main contention raised by Shri R. K. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court formulated three points for its determination and found that the first two points were properly proved by the prosecution meaning thereby that the firm Vinod Oil Mill sold 50 tins of ground-nut-oil vide Cash Memo Ex. P. 5 through Ramesh Chand from whom the Food Inspector took the samples. It was also proved that the samples were taken from the above mentioned 50 tins sold by the firm mentioned above. The third point was whether the ground-nut-oil sold by accused firm was adulterated. The contention of learned counsel is that the trial court has erred in holding that it has not been established that the three bottles in which the samples were taken were clean and dry before the samples of the oil were put into the same and the bottles were sealed. It is contended by learned counsel that even though P. W. 1 Kutubdin, Food-Inspector has not stated in his statement that the bottles were clean and dry before the samples were taken and put into the same but it is pointed out that a bare reading of Fard Report Ex. P. 2, dated August 28, 1976, clearly mentions that before the sample oil was put into the three bottles, the same were clean and dry. This report is signed by P.W. l Kutubdin as also by Ramesh Chand P. W. 4. P. 2, dated August 28, 1976, clearly mentions that before the sample oil was put into the three bottles, the same were clean and dry. This report is signed by P.W. l Kutubdin as also by Ramesh Chand P. W. 4. It is, therefore, urged that this fact clearly proves that the bottles were clean and dry with the requirements of Rule 14 of prevention of Food Adulteration - Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), have been sufficiently complied with. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel on Champa Lal v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1976, 514 . In this case it was held by this Court that neither in cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nor in arguments before the trial court or the appellate court it was contended that the bottles containing the sample were not properly packed or fastened or that the sample sent to the public Analyst for analysis was exposed to air and sun.In Bichitrananda Nayak v. State of Orissa, 1978 Cr.L.J. 1050 it was held that samples were shown to be taken in clean bottles and properly sealed. Since no challenge was made to this fact in cross-examination, therefore, the inference would be that the sample was properly preserved. In this case the evidence of Food-Inspector clearly shows that he preserved the samples in clean bottles and fastened the same then and there in presence of the petitioner. It is, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that since the accused respondents did not cross-examine P. W. 1 regarding the bottles being uncleaned or wet, cannot now be allowed to challenge the same.The contention of Shri Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the accused-respondents is that compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules is mandatory and the prosecution has completely failed to prove that the bottles used for keeping samples were clean and dry and, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents. It is pointed out that the learned trial court has placed reliance on the authorities of this Court reported in 1979 F.A.J. 311 and 1979 F. A. J. 405. Reliance has also been placed on 1981 (1) F.A.C. 100 and 1981 (1) F. C. A. 475, in which also a similar view was taken by Allahabad High Court and it was held that compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules was mandatory. Reliance has also been placed on 1981 (1) F.A.C. 100 and 1981 (1) F. C. A. 475, in which also a similar view was taken by Allahabad High Court and it was held that compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules was mandatory. It is, therefore, urged by learned counsel that merely because there is mention in the printed material of `Fard' Report Ex. P. 2 that the bottles were clean and dry will not prove that the bottles were actually clean and dry unless the same was stated by the Food-Inspector P.W. 1 in his statement. Apart from this, it is also urged by the learned counsel that this is an appeal against the acquittal and it relates to year 1976. The complaint was filed in 1977 and the accused-respondents were acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated September 28, 1979. It is, therefore, urged that after passage of nearly 14 years, it will not be in the interest of justice to reverse the finding of the trial court. Reliance has been placed on the State of Rajasthan v. Shanker Lal, WLN (UC) 1983, 335 in which reference was made to State of Kerala etc. v. Alassery Mohammed etc., AIR 1978 SC 933 . It was observed by the Apex Court that the facts that the offence was said to have been committed in the year 1975 the order of acquittal was recorded in the year 1975, almost six years had passed following the earlier decision many acquittals had been recorded felt declined to set aside the order of acquittal. A reference has also been made to State of Raj. v. Pooran, Laxman and Brijwasi, RLR 1986 (1036) . In Para 11, it was observed by this Court that when the trial court after considering the entire evidence of the prosecution came to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution witness is not trustworthy, and the trial court has given reasons for the same and the inference in the judgment of acquittal is possible only when the view taken by the lower court is perveres and is not borne out by the evidence on record and is not reasonably possible. Reliance was placed on Ganesh Bhawan Patel & another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 . 5. Reliance was placed on Ganesh Bhawan Patel & another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 . 5. I have heard learned both the counsel and also gone through the statement P.W. 1 Kutubdin and also perused the documents on record. Ex. P. 2, `Fard Report' is a printed proforma, which is to be filled by the Food Inspector at the time when the sample is taken. In third para of this proforma, it is mentioned that the samples were sealed in three clean and dry bottles. In my opinion merely because it is mentioned in this form that the sample was taken in clean and dry bottles, it cannot be held that this fact has been sufficiently proved. It was necessary for P. W. 1 Food-Inspector, Shri Kutubdin to have mentioned this fact in his statement. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that it was for the respondents to have cross-examined P. W. 1 on this point if they wanted to raise this plea. I do not agree with this contention because when the Food-Inspector does not mention anything in his statement which runs into 23 pages regarding bottles being clean and dry, the accused persons were not expected to make any cross-examination on this point. It is is only for the witness to mention this fact in his statement that the bottles were clean and dry when the question of cross-examination made on this point by the accused persons can arise. Mere printing of these words will not be sufficient to show that there was application of mind of the person who took the samples to prove that the bottles were clean and dry. Needless to say that Rule 14 of the Rules is mandatory and it was necessary for the prosecution to have sufficiently complied with its requirements. In case of Champa Lal (Supra) it was observed that this argument was not put up even in trial court that when the argument is not put up in trial court and in appellate court, the same cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in the High Court. In case of Champa Lal (Supra) it was observed that this argument was not put up even in trial court that when the argument is not put up in trial court and in appellate court, the same cannot be allowed to be taken for the first time in the High Court. But in this case this ground was taken in the trial court itself and for the reasons already mentioned above I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents cannot raise this question in this Court or could not have done so in trial court. 6. Long period of 14 years has already passed away. This is an appeal against acquittal. The provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, which is mandatory, have not been sufficiently complied with. I therefore, find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******