JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2-7-1973, passed by the Magistrate, First Class, Sri Ganganagar whereby the respondent No. 1 was acquitted of the offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Food Inspector Shri Veer Singh (P.W. 1) checked the respondent No. 1 on 22-1-69 at about 6.15 a.m., when he was carrying drums of milk on his cycle. The respondent No. 1 was engaged in selling of milk. The Food Inspector purchased 660 ml. of milk for 0.75 p. in the presence of the 'motbirs' Gurcharan Singh and Roop Singh for analysis. The milk was put into three clean, dry bottles in equal quantity and 18 drops of formalin were added in each bottle and thereafter all the three bottles were duly packed and sealed. All the formalities were completed in the presence of the `motbirs'. Receipt Ex. P/I was obtained from the accused and form No. VI Ex. P/3 and Panchanama Ex. P/3 were also prepared. All these documents were got attested from the witnesses. One of the sample bottles was delivered to the accused and his receipt was obtained. One sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Bikaner, for analysis, through registered post. Specimen seal impression along with Form No. VII Ex. P/4 were also sent by the registered post to the Public Analyst. Thereafter the report of the Public Analyst was received and it was found that the sample of milk was adulterated by reason of its containing about 10% of added water. Thereupon consent Ex. P/8 was issued by the Administrator empowering the Food Inspector to prosecute the accused. The Food Inspector submitted a complaint. The learned Magistrate tried the accused and acquitted him on the grounds that compliance of section 10(7), rule 20 and rule 9(j) were not made out and further there was delay in prosecution. The Municipal Council dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave of appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 1 and perused the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment of acquittal on the different grounds on which the same is founded. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 1 and perused the record of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the judgment of acquittal on the different grounds on which the same is founded. I may first take up the question of compliance of section 10(7) of the Act. The learned Magistrate has stated that compliance of section 10(7) has not been made in view of the fact that the two `motbirs' have not supported the prosecution and they have not been declared hostile and the sole testimony of the Food Inspector cannot be relied upon. On that basis the learned Magistrate observed that compliance of section 10(7) has not been made. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent vehemently submitted that both the witnesses have net been declared hostile. The witness Gurcharan Singh has stated that 700 grams of milk was purchased and no drops of formalin were added to the sample in his presence. He has also stated that bottles were not shown to him by the Food Inspector and the documents were also not read over to him by the Food Inspector. Similarly, the other witness has also not supported the prosecution, so the learned Magistrate was right in not relying on the testimony of the Food Inspector and this view was possible, as deposed to by the witnesses that the formalities regarding purchase of sample and other formalities were not completed in the presence of the `motbirs'; so compliance of the above provisions were not made. As such this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. It may be stated that both the witnesses have admitted their signatures on the documents prepared at the time when the sample was purchased. It is true-that they have not been declared hostile and no permission was sought to cross-examine them, but on that basis whatever these witnesses stated cannot be considered to be binding on the complainant. The statement of the Food Inspector is to be read along with the documents on which admittedly signatures of the `motbirs' appear. When the proceedings and the formalities were not completed in their presence it cannot be conceived that the `motbirs' could have offered themselves as witnesses to the formalities, as embodied in Ex. The statement of the Food Inspector is to be read along with the documents on which admittedly signatures of the `motbirs' appear. When the proceedings and the formalities were not completed in their presence it cannot be conceived that the `motbirs' could have offered themselves as witnesses to the formalities, as embodied in Ex. P/1, P/2, and Ex. P/3. Similar question had arisen in other cases in which I have expressed my opinion on the point in question, which arise in the present case. Reference may be made to Municipal Council, Shri Ganganagar v. Naresh Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 1974, decided on 2nd December, 1978 . In the light of the view expressed by me in the said case, in my opinion, it cannot be found that there was non-compliance of section 10(7). The solitary statement of the Food Inspector coupled with the documents can be acted upon and on that basis I hold that there was compliance of section 10(7) of the Act. 5. The other ground of acquittal is the non-compliance of rule 20. It is also based on the non-acceptance of the testimony of the Food Inspector and acceptance of the testimony of the `motbirs'. The statement of the Food Inspector is specific that 18 drops of formalin were added to the each bottle of the sample. That finds support from what is contained in Ex. P/2. The statement of Gurcharan Singh and Roop Singh under the circumstances cannot be relied upon and thus compliance of rule 20 is also established from the statement of the Food Inspector and proof of document Ex. P/2. 6. The next ground of acquittal is non-compliance of rule 9(j). It may be stated that the rule 9(j), as it then stood, was only directory and not mandatory and as such no acquittal can be founded on the basis of non-compliance of rule 9(j). 7. The last ground of acquittal is that there was delay in prosecution, so the accused has been seriously prejudiced. The sample in this case was taken on 22-1-1969. The sample was analysed on 31-1-69 and the consent was obtained on 5-2-69 and thereafter on 6-2-69 the complaint was filed. The accused appeared on 13-7-69 but thereafter the accused did not submit any application under section 13(2) of the Act. The sample in this case was taken on 22-1-1969. The sample was analysed on 31-1-69 and the consent was obtained on 5-2-69 and thereafter on 6-2-69 the complaint was filed. The accused appeared on 13-7-69 but thereafter the accused did not submit any application under section 13(2) of the Act. As such the alleged delay is of no consequence and it cannot be said that the accused was in any way prejudiced. If the accused wanted to avail of the benefit under section 13(2) he ought to have submitted an application under the said provision, but no such application was submitted. Thus, the acquittal cannot be sustained on the ground on which it has been based. 8. No other ground has been pressed before me on the basis of which the acquittal can be sustained. 9. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent, however, urged that the offence dates back to 22-1-1969 and about a decade is passed, so in the circumstances of the case the accused may be given the benefit of the Probation. Normally in adulteration cases benefit of Probation is not extended, but taking into consideration that a decade is about to pass, it would be proper to extend the benefit of probation to the accused-respondent No. 1. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the accused-respondent No. 1 Nanak Chand is set aside and he is convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, but instead of sentencing him I consider it expedient to release him on probation and it is ordered that the accused-respondent No. 1 Nanak Chand be released on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, to appear and receive sentence whenever he is called upon to do so during the period of one year and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 11. The learned counsel for the accused-respondent prays for two months' time for submitting the requisite bonds. Time prayed for is allowed.Appeal allowed. *******