JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision from jail by the accused applicant against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, vide his judgment dated March 31, 1977. The accused applicant was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. As the accused-applicant was unrepresented, Shri V.S Dave was appointed to represent the accused applicant under the Legal Aid Programme, 3. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant has strenuously contended that there has been non-compliance of Rules 20 and 22 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It was also contended that the statement of the Food Inspector should not inspire confidence of the Court as his statement is found to be factually incorrect. It was also contended that it cannot be ascertained from the material on the record as to how much quantity of milk was sent to the Public Analyst. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Rules 20 and 21 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules are directory in nature and are not mandatory, and non-compliance of these rules it was contended is not fatal. It was also contended that the Food Inspector has stated that he had purchased 660 millilitres of milk from the accused-applicant. It was divided into three equal parts and this quantity, which was sent to the Public Analyst, was in conformity with the requirement of Rule 22 of the Prevention of Food Adultera-non Rules. 5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant placed reliance on like decision of the Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamnani v. State of Marashtra 1975 (I) F.A.C. 1. Reliance was also placed on Sayyed Yasin v. Kirkee Contonment Board & another 1976 (II) F.A.C. 146. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Enayat Ali Nazar Ali Bhori v. The State of Maharashtra 1976 (II) F.A.C. 61 and Municipal Coancil, Jaipur v. Sitaram 1976 (II) F.A.C. 89, 7. Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides that . 6. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on Enayat Ali Nazar Ali Bhori v. The State of Maharashtra 1976 (II) F.A.C. 61 and Municipal Coancil, Jaipur v. Sitaram 1976 (II) F.A.C. 89, 7. Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules provides that . the preservative used in the case of samples of any milk (including toned, separated and skimmed milk), (standardised milk chhanna, skimmed milk chhanna, creams, ice cream, mixed ice cream, ice candi, dahi, khoa and gur) in liquid or semi liquid form shall be the liquid commonly known as "formalin", that, is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent of formalin hide in aqueous solution in the proportion of 1 i.e. 0.1 ml. (two drops for 25 ml. or 25 grams). Rule 22 specifies the quantity of sample to be sent to the Public Analyst for analysis. In the case of milk the approximate quantity to be supplied is 220 ml. 8. The attention of the Court was also invited to the proceedings dated September 21, 1976 where the contents of the bottle were weight d and found to be 280 ml. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-applicant is that 280 ml. of milk was purchased which was found to be contained in the bottle. There is nothing on the record to show as to what quantity was sent to the Public Analyst. It was also contended that the statement of the Food Inspector is found to be basically incorrect when he stated that he had divided the sample of the milk into three equal parts, which means that the bottle which was submitted before the trial court should have contained only 220 ml. of milk and not 280 ml. as it was actually found. It was also contended that formalin was also not added as a preservative as required under Rule 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Rule 22 are mandatory. As stated above, Rule 22 has not been complied with. Non-compliance of Rule 22 has not only caused infraction of the provisions, but also resulted in injustice. 9. The Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Rule 22 are mandatory. As stated above, Rule 22 has not been complied with. Non-compliance of Rule 22 has not only caused infraction of the provisions, but also resulted in injustice. 9. In view of the above facts, the quantity of the formalin, which was added, was also found to be insufficient and the quantity of milk which was sent to the Public Analyst is not found to be in conformity with the provisions of Rule 22. The conviction on such an analysis cannot be legally sustained. On such an evidence the accused applicant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 10. For the reasons stated above, the revision filed by the accused-applicant is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused applicant are hereby set aside. The accused applicant is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Revision allowed. *******