JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bharatpur, dated 15th July, 1989, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner for the offence under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, dated 22nd November, 1982, in Criminal Case No. 198/1981 (440/1977), whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for offence under S/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine the accused petitioner was ordered to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that Shri Hari Datt Sharma, Food Inspector, Bharatpur, inspected the shop of the petitioner on April 28, 1968 and obtained a sample of Besan (Gram Powder) and followed the procedure as laid-down in the law, in preparing the sample as the Inspector was ignorant in the amendment of law, he handed over one sample to the accused and two with himself of which one he is alleged to have sent for chemical analysis to the public analyst. The report of the Public Analyst, came that the sample did not confirm to the prescribed standard of purity and therefore, after obtaining the sanction submitted a complaint in the Court of learned M.J.M. Bharatpur, on 17th February, 1977. The learned Magistrate, on 29th November, 1977, ordered that the fact of the case shall be held as summary trial and he, therefore, orally read the statement of the allegations to the accused, who denied the same and claimed the trial. The case was ordered to be listed for prosecution evidence on 6th June, 1978, on which date, the same Magistrate wrote in the order-sheet that on perusal of record, he finds that the statement of allegations had been read over orally to the accused which in fact should have been in writing. He, therefore, adjourned the case to 26th September, 1978 for preparing the charge. It was further adjourned to 28th November, 1970 and the charge was read over in writing to the accused and who denied the charge and claimed the trial. 3. Prosecution evidence was summoned, who was examined as a prosecution witness on 1st July, 1980, following the procedure of the warrant trial. It was further adjourned to 28th November, 1970 and the charge was read over in writing to the accused and who denied the charge and claimed the trial. 3. Prosecution evidence was summoned, who was examined as a prosecution witness on 1st July, 1980, following the procedure of the warrant trial. No witness returned thereafter for a long period and as late as 13th July, 1982, the learned Magistrate, again changed the procedure, re-heard the argument for charge and framed the fresh charge for offence under S. 7/16 and directed the prosecution to examine the other witnesses and asked the accused if he further wants to cross-examine the Food Inspector, to which the accused denied. Thereafter accused Rajendra Prasad, was examined. Accused Rajendra Prasad, at this stage moved an application under S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which was rejected and ultimately, the accused was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, an un-successful appeal was preferred and then the present revision petition.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from beginning to end the trial Court, had committed several illegalities in this case which individually or cumulatively are sufficient to set-aside the conviction. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the law was amended on 1st April, 1976, where the provisions of S. 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been considerably changed but the procedure laid-down in S. 11 of the Act, was not followed as Shri Sharma. Food Inspector was basically ignorant about the commencement of new law. His submission is that if the ignorance of law is not an excuse for an accused, it equally applies for the prosecution that any procedure followed under the old law, cannot be made basis of trial or conviction of an accused. He has relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in The Food Inspector Anakapalli Municipality v. Kapusetitipoli Pilli Cr.L.J. 1978 page 1353. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, have not been followed in this case in letter and spirit. According to the statement of Hari Dutt Sharma, Food Inspector, he had sent the sample to the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur, with one Ramprasad. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, have not been followed in this case in letter and spirit. According to the statement of Hari Dutt Sharma, Food Inspector, he had sent the sample to the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur, with one Ramprasad. Ramprasad, has been examined in the case, who has not said a word about it. On record only one document i.e. Ex-P. 4A, according to which Form No. VII and samples were received by the Chief Public Analyst Jaipur, in which it was mentioned that he received four sealed samples No. 46/11/76 to 49/11/76, with the copy of Form No. VII through Shri Ram Prasad, on 30th April, 1976. It is submitted that admittedly, the sample had been obtained on 28th April 1976, and it was delivered to Chief Public Analyst on 39th April 1976,and it has not been shown as to where the samples remained for this period. It is submitted that there is no evidence to indicate that a copy of memo in specimen impression of seal were sent separately and by what remark. It is then submitted that the charge has been read-over in the case 3 times and the procedure has also been changed thrice which has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner in as much as he could never know as to what procedure has been followed in the case. 5. Learned Public Prosecution has supported the judgments of the courts-below and vehimently argued that there is no reason to dis-believe the statement of Hari Dutt Sharma, that the samples were obtained from the accused on 28th April, 1976 and that the official action was done in the official manner by him. Say even if Shri Sharma, was un-aware of the amendment in law, still it has not been shown by the accused that any prejudice had been caused because of handing-over the sample to the accused at the time of inspection. It is also submitted that the application which had been given under S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, had been given an in ordinate delay almost after 4 years in taking the sample and the trial-court, was justified in refusing the prayer. It is also submitted that the application which had been given under S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, had been given an in ordinate delay almost after 4 years in taking the sample and the trial-court, was justified in refusing the prayer. It is submitted that the adulteration in Beson is a serious type of adulteration in as much as the same is injurious to health and therefore, the accused is not entitled to any leniency in the case. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record of the case. Normally, this Court is slow in interference in the revisional jurisdiction and it is only when there is some serious illegality in the judgment of court-below or impropriety of the judgment is under challenge, this Court interference in its revisional jurisdiction. The instant case falls within the exceptional categories as the ignorance about the procedure to be followed at the time of seizer by the Food Inspector and ignorance of law by the learned Magistrate, trying the case is writ large. From the perusal of the record, where individually or cumulatively the illegality is committed calls for interference by this Court. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was amended by the Act 34 of 1976 and Section 11 of the Act, as it stood earlier was substituted by a new section and substantial changes had been made in the procedure to be followed by the Food Inspector. This amendment had been brought on statute with effect from 1st April, 1978, after due publication in the official gazette. By this amendment, the Legislature in its own wisdom prescribed more serious sentences providing for better working system for strict enforcement of the provisions to the extent that the amendment eliminated the scope of showing un-due leniency by the Magistrate, penalising monies storing for sale and distribution of adulterant not injurious to health also and exempted certain food from the purview of the Act. Though, on the other hand, the definition of the food was also enlarged. Though, on the other hand, the definition of the food was also enlarged. When the law was made very stringent and minimum sentencing provisions also came on the statute-book, it became the duty of the Court to jealously see that the procedure prescribed followed in letter and spirit and the reasoning given by the courts-below and adopted by the learned Public Prosecutor, is that non-following the procedure has not been showing to have caused any prejudice to the accused is of no avail. One of the cardinal principle of jurisprudence is that the ignorance of law is no excuse if that holds good qua the accused, it is fully applies to the law enforcing the agencies that they enforce the law which is in-existence at the time when the same is applied. 7. When Hari Dutt Sharma, P.W. 1, was cross-examined he admitted that he followed the old procedure laid-down in S. 11 of the Act, because he had not read the gazette. It is regretable that even the Sanctioning Authority, when the papers went for sanction, did not apply its mind as to whether the procedure laid, down in the amended law has been followed or not. I have no hesitation, therefore, in holding that the procedure was not followed in accordance with the amended law and thus, the decision reported in the case of Food Inspector Anakenalli Municipality v. Kapusettipoli Pilli (Supra), is applicable with all force in this case, wherein also the Food Inspector, had taken the sample of milk after coming into force the amendment in the Act, followed the procedure under the old law, in giving two samples to the accused instead of sending to the authority and not obtaining the signature and this was held to be illegal. 8. Coming to the second point about violation of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the situation is still worst. Ramprasad, who is alleged to be the carrier of the samplex as par Ex-4-A has not stated a word about his carrying the sample and delivering the same to the Chief Public Analyst, despite the fact that Ramprasad, has been examined to prove the other facts. Ramprasad, who is alleged to be the carrier of the samplex as par Ex-4-A has not stated a word about his carrying the sample and delivering the same to the Chief Public Analyst, despite the fact that Ramprasad, has been examined to prove the other facts. Ramprasad, was a witness to taking of the sample and was also a signatory to various forms, in fact, the Food Inspector, should have taken more precautions in sending the sample through a witness yet he has not even led the primary evidence to that effect. There is nothing on record to show that the copy of the memo and specimen impression of the seal were sent separately. On the contrary, true copy of the receipt has been placed on record which is in respect of 4 sealed samples. There is neither note as to where the original of this receipt nor there is anything on record to suggest that this was in-confirmity with the provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. I had already taken a view in the case of Tarachand Arya v. The State of Rajasthan RCC 1989 85 relying on the decision of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the provisions of Rule 18 must be complied with and the same has not been complied with in this case. Besides these aforesaid two violations of mandatory provisions of law, there is yet another flow in the case is about the procedure of trial followed by the learned Magistrate. He started with the summary trial and ended with the summons trial, in between followed the warrant trial. One of the charge read-over to the accused is absolutely vague which reads as under:- " vkids fo:) vkjksi gS fd fnukad 28&4&76 dks gjhnRr 'kekZ vkidh nqdku ij iqfu;ka dk fujh{k.k fd;k vkSj cslu dk lSEiy fy;k tks ckn tkap feykoVh ik;k x;kA vki dkj.k crk;sa vkidks mDr ,DV ds rgr D;ksa u nf.Mr fd;k tkosA " 9. There is no mention of any act on the entire papers which shows how calously the learned Magistrate has acted upon. 10. There is no use in going in further details as more deep one goes into the case more irregularities/illegalities come to surface. There is no mention of any act on the entire papers which shows how calously the learned Magistrate has acted upon. 10. There is no use in going in further details as more deep one goes into the case more irregularities/illegalities come to surface. Suffice it to say that it is a fit case, where this Court must interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial-court and confirmed by the appellate-court. 11. The result of the aforesaid discussions is that the revision petition is allowed. The judgments passed by the courts-below are set-aside and so also the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is that he is acquitted of the charge under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is on bail and need not surrender his bail bonds.Conviction set aside. *******