JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The sole question involved in the instant appeal is whether Rule 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (shortly henceforth referred to as "the Rules and the Act respectively") has been contravened by the Food Inspector. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, is that on 16-11-1981 Shri J. K. Patyal (PW 2), after having disclosed his identify and also intention to purchase 450 grams of chillies powder against due payment for being analysed, purchased the said quantity and then transferred the same into three packets (envelopes) which were, after observing codal formalities, duly sealed in accordance with law One of such envelopes was sent by him to the Public Analyst, Punjab and Chandigarh, and the remaining two were deposited by him with the Local (Health) Authority, Dharamshala. The report of the Public Analyst revealed that the sample contained total ash 8.84% and ash insoluble 2.52% against the maximum prescribed standard of 8.0% and 1.30% respectively. Contents of the sample also were found to contain 2.10% grit and thus the sample having been declared adulterated, the Food Inspector obtained sanction from the sanctioning authority for the prosecution of the seller, namely, Shri Hans Raj, carrying on his business, i e a Karyana shop at Badukhar and thereafter prosecuted the offender. 3. During the pendency of the complaint Shri Surinder Kumar, a co-accused, along with the firm known as M/s Hans Raj and Sons, Damtal, were also impleaded as such The trial court on appraisal of evidence acquitted Surinder Kumar aforesaid but convicted Hans Raj, the present respondent, vide his judgment dated August 22, 1986 which was appealed against by him. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, vide his judgment dated July 7, 1987 accepted the appeal by taking note of the fact that Rule 14 of the Rules had been contravened by the Food Inspector which vitiated the trial and resultantly recorded the order of acquittal in favour of Hans Raj, accused No. :. 5. The State of Himachal Pradesh, having been aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, have now filed the instant appeal vis-avis the acquittal of Hans Raj accused on the ground that the learned court below has wrongly held that the envelope in which sample was taken after observing codal formalities, was not put in a suitable container. 5. The State of Himachal Pradesh, having been aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, have now filed the instant appeal vis-avis the acquittal of Hans Raj accused on the ground that the learned court below has wrongly held that the envelope in which sample was taken after observing codal formalities, was not put in a suitable container. Shri C. L. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh has ably attempted to persuade this Court that Rule 14 of the Rules was not contravened Inasmuch as the envelope so used by Food Inspector Shri Patyal (PW 2) for packing the sample was a suitable container as envisaged under Rule 14 referred to above. It is pointed out that every precaution had been taken by PW 2 to close it sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or entrance of moisture and further it was carefully sealed. 6. I have carefully gone through the record, including the statement of the Food Inspector, Shri J K. Patyal (PW 2), also the Public Analysts report Ex. PE and other evidence on the record coupled with the submissions so made by the learned Counsel. 7. From the testimony of Shri J, K. Patyal (PW 2) it is evident that he used envelope for transferring 450 grams of chillies powder into three packets. What kind of envelope it was, whether of hard paper or thin paper, is not decipherable from his statement. Apart from this fact he has nowhere stated that the envelope used by him was such which was closed sufficiently tight so as to prevent leakage, evaporation and entrance of moisture therein. 8. Rule 14 of the Rules deals with manner of sending samples for analysis It lays down that samples of food for the purpose of analysts shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers, which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. Admittedly, chillies powder is a dry substance. The sample was taken on 16-11-1981 and the report of the Public Analyst was signed on 8th March, 1982. The sample was received by the office of the Public Analyst on 25th January, 1982. The report does not disclose the fact as to on what date the sample was analysed. Admittedly, chillies powder is a dry substance. The sample was taken on 16-11-1981 and the report of the Public Analyst was signed on 8th March, 1982. The sample was received by the office of the Public Analyst on 25th January, 1982. The report does not disclose the fact as to on what date the sample was analysed. Thus it is to be presumed that it was analysed on March 8, 1982, that is, after about four months of the date on which the sample was taken. These facts are not in controversy. It is well settled that onus to prove the ingredients of an offence lies upon the prosecution and this principle is to apply to the compliance of Rules which are mandatory in nature. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State, has fairly and squarely admitted that this Rule is mandatory in nature. There is no other evidence on record to show that at the time of taking sample the aforesaid envelopes which were used by PW 2, were dry and clean. Neither the said witness has stated that by the use of such envelopes leakage, evaporation or entrance of moisture could be avoided. In the absence of any such evidence on the record, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant has to be repelled. In several such like cases it has been held that if rule, which is mandatory in nature, is violated, then it is fatal to the prosecution, In other words, even the complaint could not have been filed against either of the accused persons, the initiation of such criminal proceedings being illegal for want of evidence. Thus there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment nor it calls for an interference. Resultantly the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.