JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal has been filed u/s. 378(iii) & (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 23.6.1987 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 28/84 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charge u/s. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PFA Act'). 2. It has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that provisions of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act r/w R. 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955') are not mandatory in nature and the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused of the offence charged. According to him a sample of Jalebi taken from the shop of the accused was found to be adulterated in the report of Public Analyst, Public Health Laboratory, Jodhpur, therefore, the order passed by learned trial Court deserves to be set aside and consequently the accused-respondent is liable to be convicted for the offence charged with. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused-respondent argued that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the PFA Act r/w R. 9-A of the Rules of 1955 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of it has deprived the respondent of his right, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 SCW 2866 - State of Orissa v. Gauranga Sahu and a decision of this Court in 2002 (2) RCC 1044 State of Rajasthan v. Ravi Kumar . 4. I have considered the rival submissions made before me. 5. The law on the subject is well settled. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a large number of cases has held that R. 9-A of the Rules is not of mandatory nature and is directory. 6. It is not in dispute in the instant case that the compliance of Section 13(2) has not been made and no explanation whatsoever in that regard has been sought from the accused in his statement u/s. 313, Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court as well as this Court, in my humble opinion, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court by its judgment and order requires to be maintained. 8. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court as well as this Court, in my humble opinion, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court by its judgment and order requires to be maintained. 8. The matter is of the year 1983 and since then more than two decades have elapsed. The accused has already been acquitted of the charge by the learned trial Court and the co-accused who was convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also been acquitted by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.1.1994 in Criminal Appeal No. 33/1967. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court and this Court, I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 9. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this State appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 23.6.1987 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Case No. 28/84. The bailable warrants issued against accused-respondent stand discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******