JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Ram Swarup has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 6-8-1975 passed by the Sessions Judge, Agra, maintaining his conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of one years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to six months further R.I. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 29-6-1972 at about 9-30 P.M. at the City Station Road within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, he saw the revisionist carrying 30 litres of milk for sale. In the presence of the witnesses he took 660 ml. of milk as sample on payment of price. It was divided into three equal parts and each one was kept in a separate phial. One of this phial was given to the revisionist. One phial was sent to the Public Analyst for examination and his report is dated 19-8-1972. He found it deficient in fat contents by about 11% and in non-fatty solids by 53%. On 2-4-1973 a complaint was filed against the revisionist. 3. The revisionist denied the said charge and gave out that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. His phial containing the milk was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory for examination. The latters report is dated 10-10-1974 and he also found it deficient both in fatty contents and non-fatty solids. 4. The trial court found the revisionist guilty of the said charge and sentenced him as mentioned above because he was convicted of a similar offence even before. An appeal filed against it was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed only one point before me. His contention is that the quantity of formalin mixed was much less than prescribed by rule 20 and the possibility of the constituents of the milk getting deteriorated cannot be ruled out, no reliance can be placed on the report of the Public Analyst or the Director Central Food Laboratory. I have given my anxious consideration to the same and in judgment much weight cannot be attached to it in the circumstances of this case. According to the Director Central Food Laboratory the sample contained formalin in the ratio .04 ml. to 100 ml. of sample. I have given my anxious consideration to the same and in judgment much weight cannot be attached to it in the circumstances of this case. According to the Director Central Food Laboratory the sample contained formalin in the ratio .04 ml. to 100 ml. of sample. It was no doubt short of the quantity prescribed but it is difficult to say whether the quantity of formalin mixed can be judged after a lapse of more than 2 years. In instant case the Food Inspector and his witness clearly gave out that 18 drops of formalin were mixed with each part of the sample which was quite sufficient and in accordance with the standard prescribed. Therefore, rule 20 was substantially complied with. The Public Analyst did not find the quantity of formalin less than prescribed. The report of the Director is self-contradictory inasmuch as on the one hand he found that the quantity of formalin mixed was much less than prescribed and on the other he gave answer in his report to the effect that the milk was fit for analysis. If the quantity of formalin mixed was not according to the rules, the milk could not have remained fit for analysis. If the milk was fit for analysis the sample will be presumed to have contained requisite quantity of formalin. I am, however, of opinion that if requisite quantity of formalin is mixed the constituents of the milk are likely to deteriorate after a lapse of two years and the sample is not likely to remain fit for analysis. The Director examined the sample after considerable delay and much weight cannot be attached to his report. In its absence it is open to rely on the report of the Public Analyst which was received in less than two months from the date of taking the sample. He found the sample deficient both in fatty contents and non-fatty solids. Therefore, the learned lower courts were right in holding that the milk was adulterated. Since the revisionist was convicted of a similar offence even before the punishment awarded was in accordance with law. 6. The revision application is rejected. The revisionist will surrender himself in court failing which he will be taken into custody to serve out his sentence.