JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, dated March 12, 1980; whereby he convicted the accused-respondent. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Food Inspector, Kutubuddin inspected the shop of the accused-respondent on August 27, 1976 and found him selling ground-nut oil. He had earlier learnt that the said accused is selling oil which is giving foul smell. On his reaching on the shop he suspected the oil to be adulterated and hence obtained the samples. He divided them in three equal parts as contemplated by law after giving notice under Form No, 6 and thereafter completed the formalities. He sent the sample for analysis to Public Analyst who reported that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standard of purity, hence adulterated. The report is Ex.P.5. After obtaining the sanction the complaint was filed by Kutubuddin Food inspector in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. It is pertinent to mention that accused-respondent told the Food Inspector Kutubuddin at the time of checking of the shop that he is selling the oil on the basis of ration-cards issued to the people and the bulk sale has been made to him by M/s Vinod Oil Mills, Niwai who are manufacturers. He also produced before the Food Inspector bills through which he had purchased the oil in order to prove the warranty. The Food Inspector then did not take a specific note of this and as mentioned above filed complaint against the accused-respondent. Later on a complaint was also filed against Shri Hemchand and others, the partners of M/s Vinod Oil Mills, Niwai. A separate sample was taken from a sealed tin. Thus instead of being consolidating the cases two separate complaints were filed in the same court in respect of one common inspection carried out. Separate trials proceeded and the accused-respondent's prosecution continued, though the sample obtained from the sealed tin was also found to be adulterated. The accused-respondent therefore, could not get any benefit of the warranty he had and had to face the trial till he was acquitted by the impugned judgment on the ground that proper sealing of the outer cover has not been proved. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused-respondent relied on a judgment of this court reported in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 RCC 62 . The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the accused-respondent relied on a judgment of this court reported in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 RCC 62 . Municipal Committee aggrieved by the order of acquittal moved an application for grant of leave to appeal which leave was granted and consequently the present appeal. It would also be relevant to mention here that case against Hemchand also failed in the trial court against which also an application for leave to appeal was filed and having granted the same an appeal was preferred. That appeal had not been tagged with this case but the same has been decided finally by my brother Hon'ble I.S. Israni J. on 3-7-1989. The said judgment has been reported in 1989 RCC 450. 3. In the present appeal the learned counsel submits that there is mention of the seal of the container in Ex.P.3 which is memo prepared on the spot and there is mention also in Ex.P.5 which is a report from the State Central Public Health Laboratory that there were seals on the packet containing the bottles. It is submitted that this should be deemed to be a compliance of the provisions of Rule 4 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and also of Rule 7 (1). 4. I have perused the statement and the documents. It may be observed that no document ipso facto is read into evidence in as much as the contents of which are stated on oath in court or that it is made admissible in law by specific provisions mentioned in Evidence Act as well as in the Code of Criminal Procedure such as like the report of the chemical analyst, balastic experts etc. and, therefore, what is mentioned in the memo is not enough in the absence of the statement on oath by the Food inspector. Besides this, submission is made on erroneous reading of the document. Memo mentioning about sealing of the bottles and the packet does not speak about outer cover. What is contemplated by law is that the container as well as outer covering of the packet shall be marked with a distinguishing number, hence the legislature has distinguished between word 'container' and the word 'outer cover' and they intend to ; carry different meaning. What is contemplated by law is that the container as well as outer covering of the packet shall be marked with a distinguishing number, hence the legislature has distinguished between word 'container' and the word 'outer cover' and they intend to ; carry different meaning. Same expression has been given in the judgment relied upon by the trial court, i.e., Mohan Lal v. The State of Raj. (supra). In my opinion there is no warrant for interference in this order of acquittal on this count. 5. I would also like to observe in this case that it behoved the Food Inspector that he should have either simultaneously filed the complaints against the accused respondent and M/s Vinod Oil Mills or atleast should have made reference to that in the instant case so that the court could apply its mind to the provisions regarding warranty. By not doing that he has failed to discharge his duty in Accordance with law. I may further observe that ana moly stands due to the failure on the part of the food inspector that even if legally the point agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted and the case is heard on merits, then also the finding arrived at in the case of Hemchand is likely to come in way of the prosecution in this case also because the very foundation of the case is shaken when this court in Hemchand's case has come to the conclusion that the samples have not been taken in accordance with law and that rule 14 has been violated Since it is a common transaction in pursuance of which cases have proceeded this court cannot ignore the findings arrived at in Hemchand's case. Looking from any angle it is not a fit case where interference should be made by this court with order of acquittal. 6. The result is that this appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******