JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-6-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Nurpur, under S. 16(1)(a)(i), read with S. 7(i) and S. 2(ia)(a)(c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that B. S. Sidhu (CW-1), Food Inspector, Chamba on 12-3-1991 purchased sample of Atta for analysis from the business premises of the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused). The sample so purchased was dealt with in accordance with law and on analysis of the sample, the Public Analyst opined that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards. On application of the accused, one of the sample parts kept in the office of the Local Health Authority was sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory who also found that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down for Atta under the provisions of the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The accused was, thus, tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on the accusations that he had committed an offence punishable under S. 16(I)(a)(i), read with S. 7(i) and S. 2(ia)(a)(c) of the Act and was finally convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamsala who, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused of the accusations against him. Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of S. 13(2-B) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules. 6. Hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of S. 13(2-B) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules. 6. There is no dispute that on the application under S. 13(2) of the Act moved by the accused, one of the sample kept in the office of the Local Health Authority was requisitioned by the trial Court and was sent for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused on the ground that while so sending the sample, the compliance of the provisions of S. 13(2-B) and Rule 4(2) and (3) of the Rules is not proved. Therefore, to properly appreciate the controversy, it is expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. 7. Section 13(2-B) of the Act reads as follows : "On receipt of the part or parts of the sample from the Local (Health) Authority under sub-section (2-A), the Court shall first ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided in Cl. (b) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 are intact and the signature or thumb impression as the case may be, is not tampered with, and despatch the part or, as the case may be, one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory who shall thereupon send a certificate to the Court in the prescribed form within one month from the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis." 8. Sub-Rules (1)(a), (2) and (3) of Rule 4 of the Rules reads as under :- "(1)(a) Sample of food for analysis under sub-sec. (2) of S. 13 of the Act shall be sent either through a messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in Form I in an outer cover addressed to the Director. (2) The container as well as the outer covering of the packet shall be marked with a distinguishing number. (2) of S. 13 of the Act shall be sent either through a messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet, enclosed together with a memorandum in Form I in an outer cover addressed to the Director. (2) The container as well as the outer covering of the packet shall be marked with a distinguishing number. (3) A copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal, used to sell the container and the cover shall be sent separately by registered post to the Director." 9. A bare reading of sub-sec. (2-B) of S. 13 makes it clear that when the requisitioned part(s) of the sample are received by the Court, it will examine such part(s) to ascertain : (a) that the mark, seal and fastening as provided in clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 11 of the Act are intact, and (b) that the signature/thumb marks of the accused/witness appended to the part(s) of the sample are not tampered with. 10. On being satisfied that the mark, seal and fastening of the sample are intact and signatures/thumb marks thereon are not tampered with, the Court will despatch one part of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analysis in the following manner : (i) the sample part shall be despatched by the Court under its seal, (ii) the sample shall be sent either through a messenger or by registered post in a sealed packet and a memorandum in Form I shall be endorsed therewith in an outer cover addressed to the Director, Central Food Laboratory; (iii) The container of the sample and the outer cover of the packet shall be marked with a distinguishing number, and (iv) a copy of the memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the container and the cover shall be sent to the Director separately by registered post. 11. There is no dispute about the compliance of the requirements (a) and (b) supra by the trial Court which compliance otherwise is fully established in view of the contents of the order dated 22-10-1991 of the learned trial Magistrate which is conclusive proof of the fact that trial Magistrate had, before directing the sending of sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, ascertained and found that the sample part was intact and untampered with in any manner. 12. 12. Be it stated that after ascertaining that the sample was in proper condition, the learned trial Magistrate directed that sample be sent to the Director. Apparently, these directions were to be complied with by the administerial staff of the Court and compliance of the requirements (i) to (iv) supra, therefore, is a matter of proof and no evidence in this regard has been led. Even any report about the compliance of the directions and the manner of sending the sample to the Director by the Court official who might have complied with the directions is not available on the record. No doubt it is within discretion of the Court to presume that the directions about sending the sample part to the Director have been duly complied with by the concerned Court Official but in the absence of any report about compliance of the directions in accordance with the prescribed procedure, evidence to prove the compliance will have to be led and without sufficient data/report available on the record to raise presumption of despatch of sample as per the aforesaid requirements, the Court may refuse to presume the compliance to be in accordance with the prescribed procedure. This is not a case where it can be presumed that sample part was sent to the Director after compliance of the requisite requirements. 13. There is nothing on the record to show that the trial Court affixed its own seal to the part of the sample allegedly sent to the Director as required vide requirement (1) supra. (Section 13(2) of the Act). 14. Further, there is nothing on the record to show that the container and the outer covering of the packet were marked with a distinguishing number as per the requirement (iii) supra (Rule 4(2)). This requirement is to ensure identity of the sample. No doubt the code number of the sample appears to have been mentioned as such mark in the letter addressed to the Director but no independent mark, a mark other than the code number of sample has been put on the container and the outer cover. A perusal of Rule 15 reveals that such number is required to be given by the Food Inspector on the label of the sample. The distinguishing mark contemplated by Rule 4(2) is independent of such number. A perusal of Rule 15 reveals that such number is required to be given by the Food Inspector on the label of the sample. The distinguishing mark contemplated by Rule 4(2) is independent of such number. Thus no independent distinguishing mark as contemplated under Rule 4(2) was put on the container and outer covering. Therefore, there has been non-compliance of the requirement (iii) supra (Rule 4(2)). 15. On the basis of the conclusions hereinabove arrived at, it can be safely held that there had been non-compliance of the provisions of S. 13(2) of the Act and Rule 4(2) of the Rules and the accused, therefore, is entitled for the benefit of doubt. (See Jayanti Lal Thakurdas Suratwala v. The State of Maharashtra 1986 (1) FAC 2 and Satyanarayan v. State of Maharashtra 1978 (1) FAJ 189). Therefore, the impugned acquittal does not call for interference by this Court. 16. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 17. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.