JUDGMENT :- The petitioner is convicted by 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hingoli for offence punishable under section 16(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short "the Act") and was sentenced to suffer SI for three months and fine of Rs.5001-, in default SI for one month, by order dated 20-101993. The matter was carried in appeal. The learned Add!. Sessions Judge, Hingoli, dismissed Criminal Appeal No.221 1993 by order dated 20-12-1997. These orders of conviction and sentence are impugned by the petitioner in the present Revision. 2. Relevant facts in nutshell are that petitioner was manufacturing ice candies in his factory, by name, M/s. Bhavani Ice Candy Factory at Sadar Bazar, Hingoli. On 17-5-1989 the Food Inspector collected sample of 630 grams of ice candies in clean, dry and empty bottles. Preservative formulene was added to three parts of the sample and the sample bottle was sealed by following necessary procedure. One of the part, was sent to Public Analysis for anlaysis. The report of Public Analyst (Exh.36) made it clear that the sample contained saccharine which is an artificial sweetener, use of which is prohibited under the Act, and Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 for short "the Rules") framed thereunder. 3. After complaint was lodged, the petitioner exercised his right of forwarding the sample to Central Food Laboratory, Gaziabad under section 13(2) of the Act. The report of the Central Food Laboratory (Exh.48) disclosed that the sample contained saccharine, use of which is prohibited under Rule 47 of the Rules and the percentage of sucrose was less than the prescribed minimum. In view of this report, fresh sanction for prosecution was issued. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 2(ia)(a) and 2 (ia)(m) and Section 7(i) read with Section 2(ia) (a), 2(ia)(m) and Section 7 (iii) of the Act punishable under sections 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. 4. Learned trial Judge found that guilt is brought home to the petitioner. He, therefore, convicted the petitioner as stated earlier. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the infraction of Rules 8, 14 and Section 13(2)(b) of the Rules. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has to prove that the Food Inspector has requisite qualification and has completed necessary training. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hingoli confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by dismissing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the infraction of Rules 8, 14 and Section 13(2)(b) of the Rules. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has to prove that the Food Inspector has requisite qualification and has completed necessary training. The objection raised has nothing to do with the ingredients of the offence but is concerned entirely with factual aspects. It can be seen that the notification (Exh.25) in respect of appointment of Food Inspector is placed on record. It is also not in dispute that Food Inspector was duly appointed and entrusted with the duties as enjoined by the Act. As notification regarding appointment is placed on record, it can be presumed that the officials acts were duly performed and that Food Inspector had necessary qualification for appointment and had undergone requisite training before he was entrusted with the field duty. Similar view is taken by the Gujarat High Court in the matter of Manka Hari Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1968 Cri.LJ. 746. In this view of the matter, contention in respect of qualification and training of Food Inspector cannot be sustained at this stage. 6. Learned counsel has further contended that the bottles used were not clean, dry and empty. Thus, there is infraction of Rule 14 of the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules mandates that the receptacle used for collecting the sample should be clean, dry and empty and has to be closed tightly so as to prevent leakage, or evaporation. The contention of learned counsel cannot be sustained in the fact of evidence of Food Inspector - Syed Maqsood Hussain that he has .used clean, empty and dry glass bottles in which Ice Candy with sticks was collected and the formulene was then added as preservative. The bottles were then firmly closed. This evidence of Food Inspector (PW 1) shows that sampling procedure was correctly followed. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is, therefore, not possible to sustain contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was infraction of Rule 14 because the sample was not collected in clear, dry and empty receptacle. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has further contended that the learned Magistrate has not followed the mandate of Section 13 (2B). 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has further contended that the learned Magistrate has not followed the mandate of Section 13 (2B). The sample was not forwarded to the Central Good Laboratory for about 4 months. Therefore, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and, as such, he is, entitled to an acquittal. It is not is dispute that the petitioner had made an application within 10 days from receipt of the notice for forwarding the sample to the Central Food Health Laboratory, for analysis, as required by Section 13(2) of the Act. Section 13(2-B) of the Act, provides for the procedure required to be followed by the Court to which the application is made. Sub-Section (2-A) of Section 13 provides for requisition being sent to the Local Health Authority to forward remaining parts of the sample with the said Authority. Upon such requisition being made, the said Authority has to forward the Part or parts of the sample tot he Court within a period of five days from the date of receipt of such requisition; Sub-section 2(B) reads thus: "13(2-B) : 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-section (1) of Section 11 are infact 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 from within one month fro the date of receipt of the part of the sample specifying the result of the analysis." 8. Sub-Section 2-B of Section 13 provides for safeguard against tampering of the sample. The provision is mandatory. It enjoins the Magistrate to ascertain that the mark and seal or fastening as provided by Clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 11 are infact and the signature of the accused is' not tampered with. The proviso has to be read with Rule 4, which provides that the sample has to be sent either per messenger or by registered post. (1) of Section 11 are infact and the signature of the accused is' not tampered with. The proviso has to be read with Rule 4, which provides that the sample has to be sent either per messenger or by registered post. The container as well as outer covering of the packet has to be marked with a distinguishing number; copy of memorandum and a specimen impression of the seal, used to seal the container and the cover, has to be sent separately by registered post to the Director. On receipt of the package containing sample for analysis, the Director or an Officer authorized by him, has to compare the seals on, the container and outer cover with specimen impression of seal received separately and has to note condition of the seals thereon. After the test or analysis, requisite certificate has to be issued by the Director. Compliance with the rule is mandatory. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain that the sample is not tampered with, seals are infact and the signature is also not· tampered with. There has to be some material on the record to show compliance with the provision. Non-compliance leads to the causing of prejudice to the accused. 9. In the- present case, after an application was submitted by the petitioner, letter dated 30-1-1990 (Exh.66) was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and Local (Health) Authority, Food and Drugs Administration, Parbhani for sending the remaining parts of the sample as per section. 13(2-A) of the Act, within five days of the receipt of the letter. Reply dated 31st of January, 1990 (Exh.67) shows that on the very next day, the remaining parts of the sample in sealed packet were forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner and Local (Health) Authority in the Court. The memorandum in Form No.1 (Exh.9) shows that the sample was forwarded to Central Food Laboratory on 17-4-1990. Forwarding letter dated 17-4-1990 (Exh.10) shows that sealed part was sent with distinguishing number 255/89 along with Form I and the challan with specimen impression of the seal of the Court and specimen impression of the seal of Food Inspector were sent by registered post separately. In both these communications, however, there is no reference to the fact that the signature of the petitioner was not tampered with and that the seals and fastening of the sample packet produced by the Assistant Commissioner were in fact. In both these communications, however, there is no reference to the fact that the signature of the petitioner was not tampered with and that the seals and fastening of the sample packet produced by the Assistant Commissioner were in fact. The Roznama does not even disclose that sample was at least examined by the Court. Thus, in the present case, the lower Court has not performed the duty cast upon it by Section 13(12-B) of the Act and has also not complied with the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules. 10. There is no explanation regarding delay of four months in forwarding the sample for Analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has observed that sufficient compliance of Section 13(2-B) of the Act is to be inferred as the sample had not deteriorated and the C.A. report shows that the seals were infact. This approach is not proper. Similar approach was adopted by the trial Court. If an act is to be performed in certain way, the act has to be performed in that manner and in that manner alone. The safeguard is provided as protection to the accused against tampering of the sample. This is one of the valuable rights of the accused. As the provisions is mandatory, the Court has to comply with provisions as required by Section 13(2-B) of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules. Similar view is taken by this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhyan Deo Ramchandra Patil reported in Criminal Appeal No.1110/1979 decided on 15th April, 1982. That was an appeal against acquittal. After referring to the provisions and the contents of the letter Exh.7, it is observed by the learned single Judge in para 13 that. "........... The Court is required to state if on examination it finds that the signature or thumb impression is not tampered with. It is not only when the Court finds that the signature or thumb impression is tampered with or the mark and seal or the fastening is not found infact, but the Court is required to say so. The Court, in the present case, has not taken care to mention in Exh.7 that the mark and seal on the sample were infact. The Court, in the present case, has not taken care to mention in Exh.7 that the mark and seal on the sample were infact. This shows that the Court had not applied its mind to the signature or thumb impression in order to verify whether the same was tampered or not. There is, therefore, a non-compliance of this part of the provision of sub-section (2-B) which vitiates the subsequent steps taken by the Court and makes the certificate of the Director of Central Food Laboratory worthless." 11. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, deserves to be accepted. As the trial Court has not complied with the mandatory requirement of Section13(2-B) of the Act and sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the certificate issued by the Central Food Laboratory becomes worthless and vitiates the subsequent steps taken by the Court. In this view of the matter, the Revision succeeds. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the 2nd Joint JMFC Hingoli dated 20-10-1993 and the order of the Appellate Court dated 20-12-1997, both are quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. Rule made absolute in terms of Prayer clause "B". Fine if any paid be refunded to the petitioner. Revision allowed.