JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral):- Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the records of this case. 2. In the present case the sample of Shakkar (Jaggery) from the premises of respondent No. 1 on 31.12.1987 by Kanwar Prem Food Inspector of the local area of Hamirpur. After completing the codal formalities of disclosing his identity and intention to take sample, of Shakkar and on payment of Rs. 2.40 Ps. 600 gins, of Shakkar was purchased by the Food Inspector in presence of Bachiter Singh from respondent No. l. The same was divided in 3 equal parts, put into 3 separate neat, clean and dry bottles, thereafter those bottles were properly packed, sealed and then one part was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. After analysis, the Public Analyst, Central Testing Laboratory, Kandaghat vide his report contained in Ex. PE opined that the sample contained orange coal tar dye, addition whereof is prohibited in an article of food and it is injurious to health. On this basis, Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur gave sanction to prosecute the respondent vide sanction letter Ex PF. 3. Complaint was filed in the trial court, who after examining the witnesses and recording the statement of respondent under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has acquitted both the respondents. It is this acquittal which is assailed by the State in the present appeal. 4. The respondents were acquitted on two counts namely, for want of proper sanction as well as on account of non compliance of rules 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). For the purpose of present appeal, the learned counsel for respondents has urged that without conceding even if it be assumed that the acquittal on the point of sanction is bad in law, it is unassailable on account of non-compliance of Rule 18 of the Rules. 5. Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, has urged that the sample in question was sent alongwith impression of seal thereof. He has further urged that Form No. VII alongwith impression of the seal, with which the samples had been sealed, was also sent separately as well in the present case, and the court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents. 5. Shri Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, has urged that the sample in question was sent alongwith impression of seal thereof. He has further urged that Form No. VII alongwith impression of the seal, with which the samples had been sealed, was also sent separately as well in the present case, and the court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents. These submissions have been stoutly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents who has further urged that the acquittal of the respondents on both counts as recorded by the trial court deserves to be upheld. 6. At this stage in. order to properly appreciate the respective submissions, Rule 18 of the Rules is reproduced which is to the following effect:- "18. Memorandum and impression of seal to be sent separately-A copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet shall be sent, in a sealed packet separately to the Public Analyst by any suitable means immediately but not later than the succeeding working day." The purpose of enacting this rule is clear and manifest. By making the aforesaid provision in the Rule, the Rule making authority wanted to ensure that there is proper identity of sample connecting the same and it assumes significance when a person is to be prosecuted on the sample being found adulterated under the provisions of Food Adulteration, Act, 1954. 7. In the present case it has come in evidence of PW -1 Prem Kanwar, Food Inspector that one copy of memo VII alongwith sample of specimen impression of seal was sent separately by registered post. There is nothing on record to show that in fact, it was sent except the bald statement of respondent and best evidence in this behalf was the postal receipt where by the sample was sent by registered post. In the absence of postal receipt it would neither be proper nor safe to accept the version of PW-1 regarding the dispatch of for No. VII along with specimen impression of the seal separately. In these circumstances it can safely be held that there is non-compliance of Rule 18 which further effects the identity of sample that was examined and that was stated to have beer, found adulterates as per report of the Public Analyst vide Ex. PE. In these circumstances it can safely be held that there is non-compliance of Rule 18 which further effects the identity of sample that was examined and that was stated to have beer, found adulterates as per report of the Public Analyst vide Ex. PE. Incase any authority on this question is required, a reference can be usefully made to a decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in 198 8(11) All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 156, State of Maharashtra v. Rajkaran. 8. No other evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant to show that form No. VII alongwith sample impression of seal was ever sent to the public Analyst separately and in the face of this position, the acquittal recorded by the mal court on this ground deserves to be upheld. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.