JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.7.1995 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as the learned trial court) in Criminal Case No.85/1991 by which by which he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.In brief, the facts of the case are as under: A complaint was filed on 20.6.1991 by Food inspector Laxmi Narayan against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this appeal, the Food Inspector visited the shop of the accused-respondent where he purchased the "Tilli Ka Tal" from the shop of accused respondent, where he sent to those oil to the public analyst where a report received in which it is found that this oil was adulterated.But, it is surprised that without framing the charge and recording the statement, this order was passed only on the ground that sample was not to the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13/2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.The learned counsel for the accused respondent has cited the following judgments: S.M. Milkosh Limited v. State of Raj 2006(2) RLW 1179 which runs as under: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 13(2B) - Sending of Second sample to Central Food Laboratory for examination on cost of Rs. 1,000/- Held, Section 13(2B) imposes legal duty on the Court to send sample to CFL, without charging any money from accused. The right bestowed under Section 13 on accused to get the sample analyzed from CFL cannot be made illusory by imposing a condition upon accused to deposit money order quashed ordered to get the sample analyzed without cost. (Paras 4 and 5) petition disposed of. 2. The right bestowed under Section 13 on accused to get the sample analyzed from CFL cannot be made illusory by imposing a condition upon accused to deposit money order quashed ordered to get the sample analyzed without cost. (Paras 4 and 5) petition disposed of. 2. Padam Chand v. State of Rajasthan Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1997(2) 146 which runs as under: "Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 13(2) -Sample of Burfi taken found adulterated petitioner requested the court for sending the second sample to the Director- Director reported the same to be decomposed and not fit for analysis- since the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and if the director has been unable to example the sample of the food stuff, sent to him, due to the same having become deteriorated and thus not fit for his analysis and no fault in that behalf is attributable to the accused, the Magistrate cannot fall back to the report of the Public Analyst for the conviction of the accused under Section 7/16 of the Act continuation of these criminal proceedings against the petitioner simply amount to abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate and in order to secure the ends of justice,'such abuse of process of Magistrate's court is required to be done away with and brought to an end. The proceedings against the petitioner in the court of the learned Magistrate are required to be quashed and dropped." 3. Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan RCC Sept. 1992 p. 467 which runs as under: PFA Act-Section 13(2) -Old Section and after 1976 amended Section- Under the old section payment of fees by accused for getting examined the sample by the director CFL, was a precondition and amount of fees by prescribed by Rajasthan Rules. After amendment condition of payment of fees is omitted. Held as law has does not provide for payment of fees Rajasthan Rule cannot override law and one rendered nugatory. Order set aside fees not payable". 4. Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1982 All. After amendment condition of payment of fees is omitted. Held as law has does not provide for payment of fees Rajasthan Rule cannot override law and one rendered nugatory. Order set aside fees not payable". 4. Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1982 All. India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 65 and Another which runs as under: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 13(3) -Conviction of the accused by trial court for the offence of adulteration of ground- nut oil on the basis of the report of public analyst excluding from consideration the report of the Director, Central Food Laboratory-Ground of exclusion report of Director that the specimen impression seal sent to him did not tally with the seal of the container in which the sample of oil was sent to him conviction upheld by District and Sessions Judge and M.P. High Court whether conviction of the accused could be said to be valid? (No) (High Court reversed). 5. State of Orissa v. S. Dandasi Patro, reported in 1986 EFR which runs as under: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sections 7, 16 and 2- Adulterated oil-Accused acquitted by court below: Propriety of such order of acquittal sample sent for analysis after a month. Possibility of change in chemical components cannot be ruled out as such changes may occur due to course. Failure of prosecution to establish that such change in chemical components has no connection with adulteration. Accused is entitled to be benefit of doubt. 6. Kanji v. State of Rajasthan 1997 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 64 which runs asunder: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 13(2) read with Rule 9-A of Rules, 1955-Sample of cow milk-Analyst report that 14% fat had been extracted from milk. Conviction challenged for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. Analyst report was sent by registered post to accused but was received back with report that address was incomplete. It has duty of Local Health authority take steps and to make efforts to again sent copy of report on complete address or by hand. It is duty of prosecution to establish that petitioner received that copy of report either by providing AD on by legal presumption-prosecution could not be said to have made compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act-Conviction was unsustainable. 7. It is duty of prosecution to establish that petitioner received that copy of report either by providing AD on by legal presumption-prosecution could not be said to have made compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act-Conviction was unsustainable. 7. M/s. Mohan Lal Krishna Kumar v. Cuttack Municipality All India Prevention of Food Adult erational Journal I, 1997 page 70 which runs as under: (i) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Sections 16(1)(a)(i) and 20-Revision against conviction by courts below - Challenged on ground that sanction for prosecution was not in accordance with law-Heavy burden lies upon accused to rebut the presumption of validity of order-Sanction order was types one, specifically indicating that concerned authority had gone through the analyst's report and other material before giving consent-Sanction was a valid consent. (ii) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Section 13(2) -Copy of analyst's report to be supplied to accused. Provision is mandatory. No clinching evidence that analyst's report had been supplied to accused. Conviction is unsustainable. Lastly the learned counsel for the accused respondent had also contended that now 18 years have been passed and if the sample of Tilli Ka tal is sent to the Central Food Laboratory it will not serve the purpose and it will be futile exercise.I have heard counsel for the parties and also gone thorough the record of the case.Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hearby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.7.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, Ajmer, (Raj). The accused respondent is on bail and he need not be surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******