B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri whereby he has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri convicting the accused-petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) ( i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ( for short, 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 19-3-1980 the Food Inspector of Puri Municipality made statutory purchase of 450 gms. of Panamadhuri and 450 gms. of Zuani from the shop of the accused in presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. The purchased articles were each divided into three equal parts and each part was kept in a separately dry and clean bottle and then duly sealed. One such sample bottle from each of the purchased articles was sent for examination to the Public Analyst which was received by him on 20-3-1980 and the remaining two sample bottles from each of these articles were deposited in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Puri. After receipt of the reports of the Public Analyst (Exts. 9 and 10) on 29-5-1980 disclosing the articles sent to him for examination to be adulterated, P. W. 2 obtained written consent of the C. D. M. O. , Puri, as per Ext. 11 and then submitted prosecution report in Court on 2-8-1980. A notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner with copies of the reports of the Public Analyst by registered post. ( 3 ) THE defence was that the samples were first collected in dirty "thungas' (paper bags) and then the same were kept in the bottles which were not clean or dry. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined three witnesses who have already been introduced above on a record the learned C. J. M. convicted Tdum and and sentenced the accused. As stated the appeal filed by the accused having been dismissed, he has approached this Court. ( 5 ) MISS Rath, the advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined three witnesses who have already been introduced above on a record the learned C. J. M. convicted Tdum and and sentenced the accused. As stated the appeal filed by the accused having been dismissed, he has approached this Court. ( 5 ) MISS Rath, the advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. P. K. Misra, the learned counsel contentions the principal of which is noncompliance of Rules 18 and 7 (1) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') which, according to her, are mandatory innature. These rules run as follows : - ''18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately - A copy of the memorandum 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 person authorised by him. " "7. Duties of public analyst - (1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Inspector or any other person the public analyst or an officer authorised by him shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seal theron. '' in support of such contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the following lines in the evidence of P. W. 2 :-"i sent one bottle containing Panamadhuri and another bottle containing Juani to the Public Analyst for analysis, along with a copy of the memorandum for each. I also sent separate memorandums for each of the item to the Public Analyst in a sealed cover. Those memorandums contained the specimen impression of the seals used for sealing the bottles. " ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel deserves careful consideration. Under Rule 18, specimen impssion of the seal used for sealing the packet containing the samples has to be sent to the Public Analyst separately by registered post or delivered to him or to any persons authorised by him and, under Rule 7 (1) the Public Analyst is required to compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with the specimen impression received by him separately and to note the condition of seal thereon. The evidence of P. W. 2 quoted above does not show clearly that the specimen impression of the seal had been sent seprately because by saying " I also sent separate memorandum for each of the items to the Public Analyst in a sealed cover. '' P. W. 2 cannot definitely be said to have stated that the memorandum had been sent separately in a sealed cover. It may mean that the memorandum might have been sent separately along with the samples for analysis in the same container. There is no proof regarding the mode of despatch. No postal receipt or acknowledgement receipt has been brought on record to show despatch by post. No person has also been examined to say that the articles were delivered to the Public Analyst or to any person authorised by him. In such circumstances, the evidence of P. W. 2, being not clinching, it becomes difficult to hold that the memorandum containing the specimen seal had been sent separately. It is contended on behalf of the State that in his reports, Exts. 9 and 10, the Public Analyst having given the certificate "the seal fixed in the container and on the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector xx xx xx". The suspicion arising from the evidence of P. W. 2 may be taken to have been removed and it is liable to be held that the memorandum containing the specimen impression of the seal had been sent separately. This contention would have carried some weight had the certificate been given by the Public Analyst in his own hand, but it is seen that the said certificate has been printed in the forms purported to be his certificates. So, rejecting the contention, it is held that there has been non-compliance of Rules 7 (1) and 18 of the Rules. ( 7 ) THE effect of noncompliance of Rules 7 (1) and 18 of the Rules may then be examined. In case of non-compliance of Rule 18, the duties of the Public Analyst as enjoined in Rule 7 (1) cannot be discharged. This necessarily prompts me to deal with the effect of non-compliance of Rule 18. ( 7 ) THE effect of noncompliance of Rules 7 (1) and 18 of the Rules may then be examined. In case of non-compliance of Rule 18, the duties of the Public Analyst as enjoined in Rule 7 (1) cannot be discharged. This necessarily prompts me to deal with the effect of non-compliance of Rule 18. Rules 14 to 18 of the Rules deal with sealing, fastering and despatching of samples by the Food Inspector in the discharge of his duties and these rules serve two objects, the first a being that they leave no scope for tampering with the article of food which is once sealed and packed in the prescribed manner in the presence of the respectable witness and the second being that the requirement to send a specimen impression of the seal used by the Food Inspector in a separate packet is to enable the Public Analyst to verify the seal of the packet of samples before him and to ensure him that the sample sent for analysis is the self same sample received from the Inspector. This method of check and verification provided for by the rules is the only guarantee against tampering and is a definite source of confidence both to the accused and the court that the sample to be analysed is the very same sample which had been submitted by the Food Inspector. As a matter of fact, it is the report or the certificate issued after such analysis that virtually concludes the guilt of the accused. The procedure prescribed by the rules serve a public purpose by guaranteeing impartial and honest handling of the sample despatched to and received by the Public Analyst for analysis. ( 8 ) KEEPING this object in view it has been settled by now that Rule 18 of the Rules is mandatory and non compliance of the same vitiates the trial which has been followed by this Court in Prafulla Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (1991) 4 OCR 489, Srinivas Pradhan v. State of Orissa (1991) 4 OCR 20 and Mahim Midday v. State, (1992) 5 OCR 445. Similar view has also been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sashi Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1987 EFR 150 and also by the Patna High Court in Daitari Mahto v. State, 1971 Cri LJ 129. Similar view has also been taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sashi Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1987 EFR 150 and also by the Patna High Court in Daitari Mahto v. State, 1971 Cri LJ 129. That being so, the trial against the accused is vitiated. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish that the reports submitted by the Public Analyst (Exts. 9 and 10) relate to the samples taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner and as such impugned judgment of the appellate Court confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. ( 10 ) SINCE the revision succeeds on the first ground taken by Miss Rath, it is not felt necessary to deal with the other points raised by her. I may put it on record that although Miss Rath is a new entrant to the Bar she has exhibited great zeal and enthusiasm in successfully conducting the case on behalf of the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. The bail bona fide by him stands cancelled. Revision allowed.