J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1933 (the Code for short), the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , amreli on 25-7-1991 in Criminal case No. 549 of 1987. ( 2 ) THE respondent is the original accused person against whom the appellant who is the original complainant filed Criminal case for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act for short) in the court of the learned J. M. F. C. , Amreli. The food inspector visited the shop of the accused person run in the name of Umiya Krupa kirana Stores on 30-9-1986 at about 12. 40 noon and purchased groundnut oil which was collected in a stainless steel vessel. The sample was then put in a phial and sent to the public analyst for report and upon receipt of the report, it was found that the food sample was adulterated. Therefore, a complaint was filed and the accused persons came to be charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under section 16 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE Trial Court, on the facts and circumstances, found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. It is also observed in the judgment of the Trial court that the panchas are not examined and the peon Mr. Murari who had helped the complainant at the time of collecting the food sample is also not examined. Therefore, the Trial Court thought it expedient not to convict the accused only relying on the report of the public analyst. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, this court has found that rule 14 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Rules, 1955 (the Rules for short) is mandatory and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove by leading positive evidence that bottles were cleaned and dried before the sample was taken by the food inspector. It is, therefore, the duty of the. prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all ingredients or provisions that are to be proved as per law and especially provisions which are mandatory in nature have got to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The manner of sending the sample for analysis is prescribed in Rule 14. It is, therefore, the duty of the. prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all ingredients or provisions that are to be proved as per law and especially provisions which are mandatory in nature have got to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The manner of sending the sample for analysis is prescribed in Rule 14. It is very clear from the said Rule that the sample of food for the purpose of analysis should be taken in clean and dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed and sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and should be carefully sealed. The prosecution main witness food inspector himself has not stated in his evidence about compliance of the provisions of Rule 14. Rule 14 is held to be mandatory and there is no dispute about this fact. Non-compliance of the mandatory rule is fatal to the prosecution. Since this appeal against acquittal order can be disposed of only on this count, it could not be necessary to enter into the merits of other points on which acquittal is founded upon. ( 5 ) APART from that, the powers of the court in acquittal appeal like the one on hand under Section 378 of the Code are to the extent circumscribed in the sense that ordinarily, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the Trial Court merely on the ground that other view is possible. The view and ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused is not shown to be unreasonable, with the result, this appeal is without any merits and is, therefore, required to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .