JUDGMENT Oak, J. - This revision application arises out of a prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1954). According to the prosecution, the applicant had exposed milk for sale. A Food Inspector took sample from the milk, and sent it to the Public Analyst. It was found that the sample contained 14 per cent of added water. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for having exposed adulterated milk for sale. The accused admitted that he is a vendor of milk, and that a sample of his milk was taken from him. He, however, maintained that his milk was pure, and not adulterated. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution case, and held that the milk in question was adulterated. In view of his previous convictions, the accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. An appeal filed by Kamal Singh was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra. Kamal Singh has now come to this Court in revision. 2. It has been urged for the applicant that, various rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act have not (sic) complied with in the present case. Reliance was placed upon Rules 7, 15, 17 and 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration. Rules Rule 7 deals with duties of the Public Analyst. It is mentioned under Rule 7, that the Public Analyst shall note the condition of the seal on the bottle sent to him. Rule 15 requires that the bottles or containers shall be properly labelled and addressed. Rule 17 describes how containers of samples should' be sent to the Public Analyst. Rule 18 lays down that memorandum and impression of seal should be sent separately by post. There is no evidence on the record about the compliance with these various rules. 3. In Raghunath Mody Alias Raghunath Ram Vs. The Kurseong Municipality, AIR 1923 Cal 561 it was pointed out that, u/s 14 of the Bengal Food Adulteration Act the Public Analyst must submit a certificate in the form prescribed. It was found that no such certificate was submitted in that case. The Public Analyst reported in the case by a letter in the ordinary office form. It was held that his letter was not admissible in evidence without proof of the truth of its contents. It was found that no such certificate was submitted in that case. The Public Analyst reported in the case by a letter in the ordinary office form. It was held that his letter was not admissible in evidence without proof of the truth of its contents. It appears that under the Bengal Food Adulteration Act it was the report of the Public Analyst, which could be received in evidence, It followed that a mere letter could not be received as a substitute for a formal report. That was why it was held that a letter could not be admissible in evidence. I do not find any such direction in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules laying down that, a report of the Public Analyst shall not be admissible in evidence without due compliance with certain rules. It. is possible to take the Public Analyst's report into consideration even in a case, where there was non-compliance with some of the Rules. Mr. C.S. Saran appearing for the applicant pointed out that the word 'shall' has been used in the various rules under consideration. The word 'shall' is not decisive on the point whether a particular rule is directory or mandatory. One has to read a particular rule in order to decide whether a particular rule is directory or mandatory. After going through the various rules under consideration, I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the rules under consideration are directory and not mandatory. It, therefore, follows that, even if a particular rule was not followed, that would not be sufficient for interfering with the applicant's conviction under the Act. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has further observed that, there is a presumption that official acts are done regularly and properly. Mr. C.S. Saran contended that, that presumption cannot be raised in the present case. 5. In Ashanullah Khan Bahadur v. Trilochan Bagchi 13 ILR Cal. 197 it was held that, where under an Act certain things are required to be done before any liability attaches to any person in respect of any right or obligation, it is for the person who alleges that that liability has been incurred to prove that the things prescribed in the Act have been actually done. In the present case the applicant was liable for conviction on the ground that, he exposed adulterated milk for sale. In the present case the applicant was liable for conviction on the ground that, he exposed adulterated milk for sale. His liability for conviction did not depend upon the compliance with any particular rule under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 6. In Narendra Lal Khan v. Jogi Hari 32 ILR Cal 1107; it was explained at page 1121 that, the true effect of Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that, if an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly clone. It does not raise any presumption that an act was done, of which there is no evidence and the proof of which is essential for a case. In the present case the official act under consideration is the despatch of the sample in dispute to the Public Analyst. There was evidence to the effect that, the sample was sent by the Inspector to the Public Analyst. In such a case it is permissible to raise a presumption that, the act of despatch was done regularly and properly. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in raising the necessary presumption about regularity. 7. The applicant's conviction under Act XXXVII of 1954 appears to be correct. In view of the previous conviction a heavy sentence was justified. 8. The revision application is dismissed.