JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Conviction awarded and sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Boudh and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Phulbani, are assailed in this revision application. 2. The Petitioner faced trial for having contravened the provisions of Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 28-8-1984 the Petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Bhairabi Store and had exhibited several food articles including edible oil, Ata, Suji, Sugar, etc. for sale for human consumption. Suspecting some food articles to be adulterated, the Food Inspector purchased til oil and turmeric powder on payment of requisite price. The samples collected were 0.375 grams in respect of til oil and 0.600 grams in respect of turmeric powder. The samples collected for each item were divided into three equal parts, put in clean, empty and dry bottles duly cooked, labelled and sealed in the presence of the Petitioner and witnesses after observing the formalities stipulated for collection of samples. One each of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst, Orissa, Bhubaneswar by registered parcel and the copy of memorandum with specimen impression of the seal were separately sent to the said Public Analyst also by registered post with acknowledgment slip. The other bottles in respect of each sample were sent to the Chief District Medical Officer, Phulbani for future reference. The Public Analyst found that the samples collected did not satisfy the requisite standard and certified them to be adulterated. After obtaining written consent from the sanctioning authority, prosecution was launched. The Public, Analyst reports have been exhibited as Exts. 10 and 11 and the, memorandum, and the impressions of the specimen seal used have been exhibited as Exts. 3,4, 5 and 6, and the notice of despatch by registered post to the Public Analyst, the acknowledgment receipt and the certificates issued by the Post Office respectively have been marked as Exts. 8, 8/1 and 7 respectively. 3. Two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution, while the Petitioner took the plea of denial of the occurrence as alleged and examined no witness. 8, 8/1 and 7 respectively. 3. Two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution, while the Petitioner took the plea of denial of the occurrence as alleged and examined no witness. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution; the learned trial magistrate found that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge u/s 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act and, therefore, found the Petitioner guilty. It is relevant to mention here that prosecution was launched against the Petitioner and one M/s Bhairabi Store being represented by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further period of imprisonment for one month. The orders of conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court. 4. Several grounds of attack to the sustainability of the conviction and sentence have been raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The major points so far as they are relevant are as follows: (i) The accused has been highly prejudiced because at no point of time the details and nature of the offence in respect of which he was being tried were brought to his notice. (iii) Provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short the 'Rules') are mandatory in nature, which require that copy of the memorandum referred to in Rule 17 dealing with the manner of despatching the containers of samples and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any other person duly authorised by him. There is no compliance of the provisions. (iii) The bare statement of the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) that he complied with the requirements, is contrary to the evidence adduced by him in shape of Exts. 8, 8/1 and 7. (iv) The mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with, as due and proper notice was not given to the Petitioner intimating him that he had the option of getting the samples retained with the Chief District Medical Officer ana lysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. 8, 8/1 and 7. (iv) The mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act have not been complied with, as due and proper notice was not given to the Petitioner intimating him that he had the option of getting the samples retained with the Chief District Medical Officer ana lysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory. The above contentions of the Petitioner are repelled by the learned Counsel for the State on the ground that on evaluation of the evidence, two Courts of fact have come to hold that there was proper compliance of the statutory requirements and that there was no infirmity. The reports of the Public Analyst (Exts. 10 and 11) clearly indicate about the separate despatch of the memorandum and the specimen impression of the seal and that by itself falsifies the plea of the Petitioner that the memoranda and the specimen impressions of seals were not separately sent. So far as the noncompliance of Section 13(2) plea is concerned, it is submitted that copies of the Public Analyst report were sent by register post with acknowledgment receipts, and that they have been duly acknowledged by the Petitioner and that therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the requirements of Section 13(2) have not been complied with. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the prosecution has squarely failed to bring home the charge against the Petitioner. While it is true that when the technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the latter is to prevail where on the face of the materials it appears that an accused has been grossly prejudiced by infractions in procedure, the prosecution is bound to fail. Starting with the accused statement recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that questions put to the accused were vague bereft of details and in reality the infractions alleged to have been committed were not brought to his notice. Even, the nature of contravention or as to deficiencies in samples collected were not indicated to the accused. The stand of the prosecution that the memorandum and the specimen impressions were separately sent to the Public Analyst thereby conforming with the requirements of law as also not indicated to the Petitioner. The desirability of indicating relevant details at the time of recording accused's statement is to put him to notice about the accusation. The stand of the prosecution that the memorandum and the specimen impressions were separately sent to the Public Analyst thereby conforming with the requirements of law as also not indicated to the Petitioner. The desirability of indicating relevant details at the time of recording accused's statement is to put him to notice about the accusation. The desirability is obligatory to ensure a fair trial. The Petitioner was, therefore, grossly prejudiced on this account. 6. There is also force in the contention that there is no evidence to show that the mandatory requirements of Rule 18 of the Rules have been complied with. Provisions of Rule 18 have been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran, 1988 S.C.C. (Cri) 47. It was held that the prosecution must establish despatch of the documents referred to in Tule 18 separately and in the absence of acceptable proof it must be held that the accused is entitled to an acquittal. In the facts of the present case samples of two food articles were collected and they were claimed to have been sent by registered post. The memorandum and the impressions of seals were also claimed to have been sent by two separate registered packets. The prosecution has been satisfied by producing one acknowledgment slip and two postal receipts. No material has been shown as to why the other acknowledgment slips and the postal receipts have not been produced for being used as evidence. Therefore, the mere mention in the Public Analyst report in a printed form that the memorandum and the seals were received separately is of no consequence. In this connection the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1987 (1) F.A.C. 208, Muralidhar Laxman Dhadge v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. is relevant. On that score also the conviction of the Petitioner was interdicted. 7. Coming to the plea of non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 13(2) of the Act, I find that even if the prosecution version relating to the despatch of the notices is accepted, a bare look at Exts. 13 and 4 shows that it conveys no sense. The documents are incomplete at several places illegible and, therefore, serve no useful purpose. 13 and 4 shows that it conveys no sense. The documents are incomplete at several places illegible and, therefore, serve no useful purpose. A valuable right is conferred u/s 13(2) of the Act on the Petitioner to prove his innocence by getting the samples analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory whose report supersedes that of the Public Analyst. This being a valuable right, any laxity on the part of the prosecution to properly indicate the rights substantially weakens its case and is fatal True it is, that food adulteration is one of the most heinous crimes and adulterated food affects public health and the crime is menace to the society. It is also true that the tribe of the food adulterers is rising alarmingly. But that is no ground for convicting a person who has been materially affected by slipshod adoption of procedure and lethargic action. It needs to be highlighted that the prosecution is responsible for bringing to book an offender as the punishment is intended to be deterrent for others. The trial Courts have also a responsibility to see that proper questions are put to the accused and exact nature of allegation is indicated in order to ensure a fair trial. In the present case as noticed earlier, the basic requirements in this regard have not been followed. 8. In the result, the cumulative effect of the infractions as indicated above leaves me with no option but to acquit the Petitioner and set aside the conviction awarded and sentence imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower appellate Court. Fine if paid, be refunded. The bail bond shall be discharged. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed