JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—Shri H.L. Pathak, Food Inspector, on 31.7.1993, at about 9 a.m. purchased a sample of cows milk from the respondent, who at the relevant time was having about 30 kgs. of cows milk in a drum on a motor-cycle for sale to the general public. Such sample, on having been sent to Public Analyst was found to be adulterated since solid not fat contents were found to be 7.71%, as against the minimum prescribed standard of 8.5% in the sample. 2. On having been put to trial, the respondent pleaded not guilty. His defence is that the milk being carried by him was not meant for sale and that he was carrying the same to the Paonta Sahib Gurudwara. 3. The learned Magistrate formulated the following points: 1. Whether there was sale as per Section 2(xiii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act ? 2. Whether requirement of Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been complied with? 3. Whether there is a breach of Rule 17 of the Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. Whether the deficiency by adding fat and solid not fat can be regarded as marginal and in accordance with this, accused is entitled for acquittal? 5. Whether there is proper sanction? 4. Points No.1 to 3 and 5 were answered in the affirmative while point No. 4 in the negative. The learned Magistrate thus came to the conclusion that there has been non-compliance of Rule 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, and that due to non-compliance of the provisions of such Rules, the respondent was entitled for acquittal. The learned Magistrate, vide his judgment dated 26.8.1994, has acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 5. By virtue of the present appeal preferred, under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has assailed the acquittal of the respondent, as recorded by the learned Magistrate. 6. Even if the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate on point No. 3 holding that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules are held to be bad and liable to be set aside, the acquittal of the respondent has to be maintained and no interference is called for in this appeal for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Rule 14 of the Rules provides: "Samples of food for the purpose of analysis 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." 7. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that 750 Gms. of milk purchased by the Food Inspector, as sample from the respondent, was taken in three polythene bags instead of bottels or jars or any other suitable containers. Therefore, on the face of it, there has been a non-compliance of Rule 14 of the Rules. 8. The question which arises next for consideration is whether the provisions contained in Rule 14 of the Rules, quoted above, are mandatory or directory. 9. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Nasib Chand v. The State of Punjab (1986 FAJ 285) and in State of Punjab v. Raj Kumar and others (1992 (2) FAC 66), has held Rule 14 to be mandatory and that the provisions contained therein must be strictly complied with. Any violation of the provisions contained in Rule 14 would be fatal to the prosecution. 10. A similar view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Ultadanga Oil Mill and another v. The Corporation of Calcutta (1992 (2) FAC 304). 11. A learned single Judge of this Court also in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hans Raj (1992 (2) Sim. L.C. 158), has held that Rule 14 of the Rues deals with the manner of sending samples for analysis. It lays down that the samples of food for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or any 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. It was further held that the provisions contained in this rule are required to be strictly complied with and non-compliance thereof would be fatal to the prosecution, since the provisions contained in Rule 14 are mandatory in nature. In the said case the sample of chillies powder was taken in the polythene bags instead of bottles or jars or any other suitable containers. 12. In the said case the sample of chillies powder was taken in the polythene bags instead of bottles or jars or any other suitable containers. 12. As stated above, in the present case as well the sample of milk was taken by the Food Inspector in polythene bags instead of bottles or jars or any other suitable containers. The purpose of the rule is to prevent leakage etc. It is in evidence of the prosecution itself that the first sample sent to the Public Analyst was found leaking, therefore, a requisition was sent by the Public Analyst to send the second part of the sample. 13. Since there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, in the present case, which is fatal to the prosecution, the acquittal of the respondent, as recorded by the learned Magistrate, cannot be interfered with. 14. As a result, the present fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent shall stand cancelled and discharged. Appeal dismissed.