ORDER B.D. Gupta, J. - This is an application in revision by one Chandi who has been convicted u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- . 2. The Applicant is a milk vendor licensed to sell milk in the area of Municipal Board, Ghaziabad. The prosecution case was that on 24-8-1965 Mahendra Singh, son of the Applicant, was found carrying three cans of milk in Prem Nagar, Ghaziabad. Mr. G.D. Talwar, Food Inspector enquired from Mahendra Singh as to where from he had brought the milk, whereupon Mahendra Singh informed him that he had brought it from his father, the Applicant. The total quantity of milk was 15 seers. Mr. Talwar purchased 3/4 seers of milk i.e. approximately 24 ounces of milk from Mahendra Singh, divided it in three tins and sample was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and report. The Public Analyst found the milk adulterated and after obtaining the sanction of the Health Officer, the Applicant, as also his son Mahendra Singh were prosecuted. 3. At the trial no independent witnesses were examined but Sri Talwar, the Food Inspector and also another Food Inspector Sri B.M. Lal, were examined, in support of the prosecution case. The learned Magistrate accepted their evidence and convicted and sentenced the Applicant as above. The Applicant's son being of young age was given the benefit of the provisions of the UP First Offenders Probation Act and admonished u/s 3 of the said Act. 4. Mahendra Singh did not file any appeal, but the Applicant did. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the view taken by the learned Magistrate, dismissed the appeal. 5. At the hearing of the revision today Learned Counsel for the Applicant raised two principal questions. The first was that assuming that the Applicant's son Mahendra Singh was carrying the milk for sale, there was no evidence to establish that he was doing so under instructions from his father, the Applicant. He also urged that there was no evidence on record to make out that the condition of the milk at the time the samples were taken by the Food Inspector was the same in which the Applicant may have handed over the milk to his son Mahendra Singh. He also urged that there was no evidence on record to make out that the condition of the milk at the time the samples were taken by the Food Inspector was the same in which the Applicant may have handed over the milk to his son Mahendra Singh. The second contention raised by the Learned Counsel is based on Rule 20 of the rifles framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and it has been urged that the amount of formaline mixed with 3/4 seer of milk purchased by way of sample was far short of the amount required to be mixed by Rule 20. Both these contentions appear to be well founded. 6. Learned Counsel for the State has been unable to refer to any evidence to make out that the milk which was carried by Mahendra j Singh had been handed over by the Applicant to Mahendra Singh and that the milk in the possession of Mahendra Singh was in the very condition in which the Applicant handed it over to Mahendra Singh. It may be that Mahendra Singh stated to the Food Inspector that the milk which he was carrying had been handed over to him by his father. But such a statement of Mahendra Singh, even if made by an accused person id the course of a trial would be of little value against the co-accused. It is, therefore, impossible to accept that the prosecution has established Applicant's responsibility for sale of adulterated milk. 7. A perusal of Rule 20 makes it clear that in cases of sample of milk formaline has to be mixed, in the proportion of two drops for every ounce of the sample. In the present case the total amount of 16 drops of formaline was mixed with the entire Quantity of 3/4 seers of milk, even though the proper quantity of formaline according to the requirements of Rule 20, would be 48 drops. The amount of formaline mixed with the milk which was taken as sample was only 1/3rd of the quantity which should have been mixed and it would be impossible for anyone to lay down the result of the milk said to be preserved, particularly when that milk was examined by the Public Analyst after a gap of a full month. The amount of formaline mixed with the milk which was taken as sample was only 1/3rd of the quantity which should have been mixed and it would be impossible for anyone to lay down the result of the milk said to be preserved, particularly when that milk was examined by the Public Analyst after a gap of a full month. In these circumstances the report of the Public Analyst loses value and it becomes very difficult in such cases to accept the Public Analyst's report with confidence and hold, on the basis thereof, that the milk contained adulteration to the extent required to make possession thereof an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Reference has also been made to the decision of brother Tripathi in the case of Ganga Saran v. State 1968 AWR 277 in which, as regards Rule 21 of the rules, the learned Judge has taken the view that it is mandatory. Rule 21 provides that the nature and quantity of the preservative added to the sample shall be clearly noted on the label to be affixed to the container. Rule 21 is mandatory and much more so would the provisions in Rule 20 be mandatory inasmuch as the purpose of adding the preservative according to the requirement of Rule 20 is to preserve the sample in such a way that the Public Analyst's examination as to the extent of adulteration, even though made after a considerable laps of time, would be the same as it would have been had the sample been examined the very date on which it had been taken possession of. 8. The result is that, in these circumstances, I find it impossible to hold that the charge on which the Applicant stands convicted has been established in this case. 9. This revision is accordingly allowed, the conviction of the Applicant u/s 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and also the sentence of imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- are both set aside. The Applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged, the fine if already realised shall be refunded.