JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant – State of Gujarat through Mr. M.M. Chaudhary - Food Inspector, Food & Drugs Department, Local Health Authority Office, Surendranagar has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2011 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2009, acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Section 2(I-A), 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution unfolded in the complaint filed by the Food Inspector – Mr. M.M. Chaudhary, on 17.03.1994, he visited the premises of respondent No.1 – accused along with panch and helper where the respondent accused was present. Thereafter, after issuing oral as well as written notice in form VII to the respondent accused, he purchased 500 gram of edible oil upon payment of Rs.17.10 and in presence of panch witnesses, the samples of edible oil were procured and sealed in three cleaned, odorless glass bottles, which were closed by means of cork so as to prevent leakage and entry of moisture into the bottle. Thereafter, the seals were applied. Out of the said samples, one sample was sent on the next day with memorandum Form VII to the public analyst for analysis. It was opined in the report that the sample of edible oil did not conform the standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. After obtaining the consent of the local health authority as required under Section 20 of the Act, the complaint came to be registered against the respondents accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar for the offence punishable under Section 2(I-A), 7(1) and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 3. The complaint came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5872 of 1994. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate delivered the judgment and order dated 30.09.2009 in Criminal Case No. 5872 of 1994 against the respondents. Against the said judgment dated 30.09.2009, the respondents preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2009 which came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 16.07.2011 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, acquitting the respondents accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 16.07.2011, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has pointed out that the learned trial court has taken a very hyper-technical view in acquitting the respondents accused. Learned APP has argued that though the sample was turned out to be adulterated as per the report of the public analyst and the said factual aspect was established, the learned trial court recorded a reason that since the bottle in which the sample was drawn was not cleaned by the Food Inspector at the time of drawing the sample, the mandatory requirement of Rule 14 for drawing the sample was not complied with. Learned APP has further argued that the learned trial court recorded that while drawing the sample, the entire tin weighing 15 kg was not stirred and it was not made homogeneous. Learned APP has lastly argued that on the aforesaid grounds, the learned Sessions court reversed the judgment of conviction into acquittal which requires to be converted into conviction. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. D.K. Modi for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial court clearly arrived at a finding that the evidence on record is not disclosing that the complainant had stirred edible oil tin so as to ensure that the sample collected was homogeneous in character. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. D.K. Modi for the respondents has submitted that the learned trial court clearly arrived at a finding that the evidence on record is not disclosing that the complainant had stirred edible oil tin so as to ensure that the sample collected was homogeneous in character. He has argued that similarly, the complainant himself has admitted in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination that he neither cleaned the bottle nor ensured prior to drawing the sample and straightway used the bottle which was supplied by the office. He has further argued that in that view of the matter, the learned trial court recorded a clear finding of violation of Rule 14 of the Rules. 6. In light of the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court was taken through the judgment of both the courts below as well as oral deposition of the complainant – Food Inspector. On overall evaluation of evidence of the complainant in the present case, it is nowhere revealed by him that he stirred the edible oil tin so as to ensure that the sample collected be made homogeneous in character. Similarly, as noted above, in paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he had not cleaned the bottle before drawing the sample and straightway used the bottle supplied by the office. 7. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence on record, as per Rule 14, it is mandatory that the sample collected for the purpose of analysis shall be taken in clean dry bottles or jars or in other suitable containers which shall be closed sufficiently tight to prevent leakage, evaporation or in the case of dry substance, entrance of moisture and shall be carefully sealed. Thus, since the complainant himself has admitted that he had not cleaned the bottle before drawing the sample, there was a clear violation of Rule 14 and in the same way, before drawing the sample in order to make the entire quantity of edible oil tin homogeneous, he was required to stir the entire tin before drawing the sample which has not been done so far. 8. In that view of the matter, there is no expectation of conclusive result of analysis for want of carrying out mandatory requirement of drawing the sample as such which goes in the root of the case itself. 8. In that view of the matter, there is no expectation of conclusive result of analysis for want of carrying out mandatory requirement of drawing the sample as such which goes in the root of the case itself. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents which calls for no interference. 9. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is dismissed. 10. The record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.