JUDGMENT G.R. Moolchandani, J. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of Special Judge, SC/ST Act passed in Criminal Appeal No. 25/1997 (13/96) on 19.2.1998 upholding the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta in Criminal Case No. 24/1989 dated 27.5.1996 convicting the revisionist-petitioner under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act and sentencing him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment and fine, of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The prosecution case is that 7.8.1988, Food Inspector, Champa Lal checked kirana shop of M/s Ratan Lal Girdhari Lal and purchased Til oil (sesame oil) as sample for chemical examination after informing that the said oil was being purchased for the purpose of analysis. Til oil so obtained was found to be adulterated as such after obtaining necessary consent, a complaint was, filed against the accused-revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 7/16 of Food Adulteration, Act Learned ACJM passed conviction order sentencing the accused-revisionist under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act and awarded sentence to undergo one year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- vide, its order dated 27.5.1996 which was confirmed and upheld by the judgment impugned by Special Judge, SC/ST Act in Criminal appeal No. 25/1997 (13/96) on 19.2.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-revisionist has submitted that the samples were not properly covered from outside and instead of a single sample, three samples were separately taken in three phials. More over, the sample was not made homogeneous and there is no evidence with respect to the cleanliness and dryness of the bottles. Learned counsel has further pleaded 'that the prosecution has not complied with Rule 4(3) read with Rule 18, and the copy of the memorandum and impression of the seal have not separately been transmitted to the Public Analyst. The report of the Public Analyst was supplied after a lapse of two years hence the sanctity of getting the sample re-examined virtually frustrated because iapse of two years rendered the sample not worthy to be re-examined. Prosecution has also failed to establish that the alleged commodity was kept for vending since mere possession does not attract any infringement of law. He has further submitted while referring the evidence of PW. 1 and PW.3 hat notice was also not given to an appropriate person. Son of the revisionist was shown to be operating the shop but the revisionist was sub-sequently served with the notice. He has further submitted while referring the evidence of PW. 1 and PW.3 hat notice was also not given to an appropriate person. Son of the revisionist was shown to be operating the shop but the revisionist was sub-sequently served with the notice. He has also submitted that the re-examination of the sample which is an important right of the revisionist could be availed by applying in the Court and by that time the sample was not in a position to be re-examined. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) State of Maharashtra v. Shri Suryabhan Ukarda Rokade dated 4th July, 2012 by Bombay High Court; (ii) Municipal Board, Deoli v. Hemchand & Ors. Decided on 3.7.1989 reported in RCC Oct, 1989; (iii) State of Rajasthan v. Narain reported in 1999 (2) RCD 935 (Raj); (iv) State of Rajasthan v. Prabhu Dayal & Anr. 1999 (2) RCD 1170 (Raj); (v) State of Rajasthan v. Naresh Chand reported in 1988 2 RW (Raj) 187; (vi) Rupak Kumar v. State of Bihah &. Anr reported in 2014 Past CrC (SC) 126; (vii) State of Rajasthan v. Ramji Lal & Ors. reported in RCC Jan, 1992 (viii) Leela Devi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr reported in 2012 CrLJ 4085 ; (ix) Girishbhai Dahyabhai Shah v. C.C. Jani & Anr. reported in 2009 (4) BBCJ(SC) 305; (x) M/s Shri Hari Oil Industries (Hart Oil Mill) & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (in S.B. Crl. Misc Petition No. 428/2013) decided on 4.12.2014; (xi) State of Rajasthan v. Mohammad Muslim Tagala reported in 2015 CrLJ 252 ; (xii) Abdul Mazid v. State' or Rajasthan, reported in 1996 CrLR (Raj) 508; and (xiii) S.M. Milkosh Limited v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006 CrLJ 1976 . Learned counsel has also submitted that the findings of the learned Lower Court are not maintainable and deserve to be quashed and the revision petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside and in event of upholding the conviction, the appellant be released on undergone. Since the accused is; more, than 80 years and he trial has already taken about 28 Years. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no transgression of any rule. Since the accused is; more, than 80 years and he trial has already taken about 28 Years. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that there is no transgression of any rule. The sample was taken in a metal pan (bartan) which was subsequently instilled in three dry bottles after making them homogeneous and provisions of Food Adulteration Laws have meticulously been complied with. The revisionist was informed by registered post with respect to the report of food laboratory and he has very well availed his right for getting the sample re-examined, so there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition does not bear any merit and be rejected. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment/s and perused the record. Prosecution has produced three witnesses, Champa Lal, the Food Inspector checking the questioned shop and obtaining sample and subsequently filing the complaint and two other witnesses Ghasi and Ganpat Lal. 6. The factum of bottles in, which the said Til oil sample was taken and instilled were clean and dry has not been proved by the prosecution. The Food Inspector, Champa Lal (PW-2) has specifically narrated while cross-examined as under. (matter in other language) 7. Ghasi Ram (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution story and this witness has stated being hostile as:- (Matter in other language) 8. Ganpat Lal (PW-1) who is an employee of Health Department has also uttered nothing about dryness & cleanliness of the bottles and has said: (Matter in other language) 9. Appreciation of above evidence clearly establishes that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the containers in which the oil sample was instilled were properly clean and dried prior to filling of the sample oil, violates the mandate of rule 14. 10. Appreciation of above evidence clearly establishes that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the containers in which the oil sample was instilled were properly clean and dried prior to filling of the sample oil, violates the mandate of rule 14. 10. The complainant, Inspector Champa Lal has said that the container from which the sample oil was taken was weighing about 14 kg of oil and this has been controverted by other witnesses of the prosecution since Ganpat Lal (PW- 3) has said that the container was having 3 to 4 kg of oil and same quantum has been stated by PW 3 Ganpat Lal which has created doubt on the existence and quantity of alleged oil in the container, even Ganpat Lal has once stated that 600 to 650 grams oil was taken as sample, which is contrary to the quantity as stated by the Food Inspector Champa Lal uttering it weighing of 375 grams. 11. Appraisal of entire evidence, explicitly shows that the oil sample was not made homogeneous and was not stirred prior to sample. Ganpat Lal (PW-3) has observed in the last line of his cross-examination that (matter in other language) Ghasi Ram (PW-2/1) has stated likewise that (matter in other language) 12. Champa Lal (PW-2), the raiding Inspector-complainant has stated that Ratan Lal was present on his shop and was sitting there whereas both the other two witnesses of prosecution namely Ghasi Ram and Ganpat Lal have narrated otherwise that Ratan Lal's son was sitting at the shop and Ratan Lal was called upon from the adjoining domicile which cast doubt as to who was actually operating the shop, the prosecution evidence reflects and reveals that the shop was located in public place where independent witnesses were present, but the prosecution has shirked to include any such dependent witness, shrouds the veracity rather be doubtful. 13. Ghasi Ram (PW-2/1) has become hostile and Ganpat Lal (PW-1) is a companion employee of Champa Lal. Since Champa Lal has asserted that Ganpat Lal was on duty along with and he served in his health department, turns the entire prosecution story dubious though there is an evidence of re-examination of the said sample by Central Food Laboratory, but no positive evidence has, been adduced by the prosecution with respect to sending of the information under Section 13(2) to the accused-revisionist. Exhibit 3 has got a mentioning regarding Mungfali oil which has been corrected by an over writing cutting and this too has been admitted by the complainant Inspector Champa. The compliance of Rule 4(3) and Rule 18 has also not been meticulously adhered, is apparent from the prosecution evidence. 14. There is specific say by the prosecution witness that Ratan Lal was engaged in tilling and his son was carrying on the shop activity at the time of raid as such he was principal person performing the functions of the business of the firm, has also not been established by the prosecution. 15. Elucidation and reappraisal of the above is enough to reveal that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged charge against the revisionist beyond doubt. In this view of the matter both the learned courts below have committed error in convicting the accused. In the result, this revision petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 19.2.1998 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act in Criminal Appeal No. 25/97 (13/96) upholding the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Merta dated 27.5.1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 24/89 convicting the petitioner-revisionist under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act by sentencing him to one year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- is hereby quashed and accordingly the, conviction of accused-revisionist for the offence under Section 7/16 of P.F. Act, 1954 and sentence is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the charge of Section 7/16 of P.F. Act. The accused is on bail so he is not required to surrender.