JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Applicant was convicted by a Magistrate First Class Under Section 16 of the Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 400/- . On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut; hence this revision. 2. On 15-4-1965 at about 7-30 a.m. Sri R. Krishan, Food Inspector, Meerut Cantonment Board, obtained a sample of cow's milk from the Applicant. After mixing preservative in it was divided in three portions and kept in three separate phials. One of the phials was handed over to the Applicant, the other was kept at the office of the Cantonment Board and the third was sent to the public Analyst for his examination and report. The report of the Public Analyst dated 1-6-1965, shows that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 21 per cent. Accordingly the Applicant was prosecuted and convicted as stated above. 3. Sri D.P. Mittal, Learned Counsel for the Applicant, has argued that the label affixed to the phial containing the sample did not indicate whether any preservative was added to it and, if so, what was its nature and quantity. That being so, it is urged that it cannot be held affirmatively that any preservative was added to the sample at all, and, if in that situation the milk was found adulterated by the Public Analyst no responsibility can he fastened on the Applicant. I find force in his contention. Rule 21 reads: "Whenever any preservative is added to a sample the nature and quantity of the preservative added shall be clearly noted on the label to be affixed to the container." Under this rule it is imperative on the part of the person taking the sample that if he adds any preservative to it he must clearly note on the label to be affixed to the container the nature and quantity of the preservative. Sri R. Krishan (PW 1) has stated that he added 16 drops of formalin in each of the there phials but he admitted that the label affixed to the phial Exhibit 1 did not contain any note that the preservative has been added to it nor does it give any description about the quantity and quality of the aforesaid preservative. Sri R. Krishan (PW 1) has stated that he added 16 drops of formalin in each of the there phials but he admitted that the label affixed to the phial Exhibit 1 did not contain any note that the preservative has been added to it nor does it give any description about the quantity and quality of the aforesaid preservative. It is, therefore, clear that Rule 21 has not been observed by the Food Inspector. 4. There is another circumstance which shows that either no preservative was added or if any was added it was wholly insufficient to preserve the constituents of the milk. The phial of sample which was kept at the Cantonment Board was brought in court at the instance of the Applicant by the Food Inspector on 15-1-1966 and he admitted that its contents had decomposed and changed their colour. 5. In these circumstances it is difficult to place an implicit reliance on the testimony of the Food Inspector that he had mixed the requisite quantity of preservative as laid down in the rules, in the sample. 6. It is true that the Public Analyst has reported that no change had taken place in the constituents of the milk but in view of the non-observance of Rule 21 which in my opinion is mandatory in character the conviction of the Applicant cannot be upheld. 7. In the result this revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the Applicant as recorded by the trial court are set aside. Applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. Fine, if paid shall be refunded.