( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment dated 03-09-1999 passed in S. T. C. No. 56 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, uravakonda, acquitting the respondent- accused of the offences punishable under sections 16 (1) (a), (i), 7 (1) and 2 (ia) (m) of prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules 1955 (for short the Act and the rules ). ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17-12-1997 at about 3. 30 p. m. the food inspector (P. W. 1) inspected the Kirana shop of the accused in the presence of P. W. 2- mediator. On suspicion that 15 kgs of dhal kept in an open gunny bag, is adulterated, he purchased 750 gms of the said dhal by paying the price and after dividing the purchased dhal into three parts as per the procedure prescribed under the Act, sent one sample to the Public Analyst for analysis. The Public analyst after analysis opined that the sample does not conform to the standards of Weevil led grains and Uric acid content and is, therefore, adulterated. After following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules, a compliant was filed which was taken on file by the learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant-Food Inspector himself was examined as P. W. 1 besides examining P. W. 2 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P-18. On a perusal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Court below acquitted the respondent- accused on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory provision as contemplated under Rule 18 of the Rules. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD both the sides. ( 5 ) FORM a reading of the judgment of the court below coupled with the evidence, it is clear that there is total violation of the mandatory provisions as contemplated under section 10 (7) of the Act and Rule 18 of the rules. When once the sample was lifted on 17-12-1997 and the public analyst report was received on 27-1 -1998 and the sanction orders were obtained on 17-7-1998, it is not known as to why the prosecution could not be instituted till 17-9-1998. Thus, there is delay of more than 7 months in launching prosecution against the accused. When once the sample was lifted on 17-12-1997 and the public analyst report was received on 27-1 -1998 and the sanction orders were obtained on 17-7-1998, it is not known as to why the prosecution could not be instituted till 17-9-1998. Thus, there is delay of more than 7 months in launching prosecution against the accused. According to Rule 18 of the Rules, the copy of memorandum and the specimen impression of seal used to seal the packets shall be sent in a sealed pocket separately to the Public analyst by suitable means immediately, but not later than the succeeding working day. Therefore, it is the duty of the Food Inspector- p. W. 1 to establish by leading positive evidence that the memorandum and specimen impression of seal was sent to the public Analyst separately. But in the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that a copy of the memorandum and specimen impression of seal used to seal the pocket were sent in a sealed pocket separately to the Public Analyst. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondent- accused. I see no reason or justification to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.