He submitted that in column 5 Total starch maximum 60% is
shown. However, the report given by public analyst exh.
21 does not disclose how much starch per cent by weight
is shown. Therefore also, benefit should go to the
present respondents. Relying on the authority of this
court in case of State of Gujarat V/s Gobar@Gopal
Tapubhai Dholariya reported in 1996(1) G.L.R. 137, the
learned advocate for the respondents submitted that Rule
14 is mandatory. Non-observance thereof will be fatal to
the prosecution case. In the facts before the learned
Single Judge of this court, the prosecution has failed to
show that material requirements of Rule 14 of the Rules
are satisfied, the impugned acquittal order cannot be
disturbed. The order further says that where two
reasonable conclusions are drawn on the evidence on
record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial
caution refrain from interfering with the order of
acquittal recorded by the Court below. Relying on the
Chimanlal Govindji Thakker V/s State of Gujarat & Anr.
reported in XXXVIII(1) G.L.R. 458, the learned A.P.P.
submitted that microscopic test is not provided for in
the Act or Rules. The learned advocate for the
respondents has also relied on the decision in case of
Kishorkumar Venilal Patel V/s Dayaswarup Bhailalbhai Rao
& Anr. reported in XXXII(1) G.L.R.380.
