JUDGMENT 1. -State of Rajasthan, through this appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C., challanges the acquittal of respondent-Parasmal by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nibaheda under section 7/16 of the P.F. Act vide judgment dated 21.2.1983. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.11.1975 Shri Ram Shanker Pandey, Food Inspector purchased 660 colts. of cow milk from the respondent for analysis. He divided the sample in three parts and after filing the same in dry bottle. sealed them. One sealed bottle was sent to the Public Analyst who vide report Ex. P/6 dated 21.11.1975 opined that the sample of milk was adulterated as it contained 24% of added water. The Food Inspector after obtaining the consent required under section 20 of the P.F. Act filed a complaint against the respondent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution examined PW 1 Ram Shanker Pandey and PW 2 Naseer Khan. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent on the sole ground that compliance of mandatory provisions of Rr. 7 & 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was not made. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate ought not to have acquitted the respondent on the technical ground and on the report of the Public Analyst he should have been convicted. 4. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent. tried to support the judgment of the trial Court. 5. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it is based on judgment of this Court reported in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 223 . In that case it was held that R. 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 is mandatory and its non-compliance is bound to be fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Judge after surveying Rr. 7, 17 & 18 held that though R. 17 does not require the Food Inspector to seal the outer cover but if the Rule is read with R. 7 and Form-III as amended in the year 1973, it has become necessary for the Food Inspector to seal the outer cover of the sealed packet. Learned Public Prosecutor has not cited any authority taking contrary view. 6. A reading of the report Ex. P/6 does not indicate that the outer cover of the packet was found in sealed condition. Learned Public Prosecutor has not cited any authority taking contrary view. 6. A reading of the report Ex. P/6 does not indicate that the outer cover of the packet was found in sealed condition. It is noticed that the report was prepared by the Public Analyst in old form No. III. In the case of Mohanlal v. State of Raj . (supra), it was noticed by this Court that Form No. 3 was amended in the year 1973 and the words "and the outer cover" were added after the word "container" and before the word "of" in second pragra. The fact that there is no certificate in the report Ex. P/6 that the Public Analyst had compared the seal of the outer cover with the specimen impressions of the seal sent separately, clearly goes to show that the outer cover had not been sealed by Food Inspector. 7. The requirement to seal the outer cover of the sample is to assure a safeguard about the fair proceedings in the process of taking the sample and therefore the provisions of R. 7 of P.F. rules is mandatory in nature. In the instant case, as the outer cover had not been sealed the report of the Public Analyst cannot be used as evidence under section 13(5) of the P.F. Act, 1954. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******