Short Note : The applicant was prosecuted under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act. According to the complainant Mahesh Chandra (P.W.1) he purchased 66 Om. 1.0 of milk as sample for analysis from the applicant on 27-9-74. It was alleged that the applicant was a milk vendor and the sample was taken from a bucket in which about 7 K.G. of milk was stored. The Sample was divided into three bottles and after adding the requisite quantity of formulin and performing the necessary formalities the sample was sent for analysis to the public analyst. The public analyst reported that the milk was below standard. The applicant was therefore, prosecuted for the offence as stated above. The applicant denied his guilt. After trial the learned magistrate convicted the applicant of the offence charged with and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal by the applicant the lower appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The applicant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record I am of the opinion that it has been rightly found that the applicant was a milk vendor and that the milk was sold by him to the Food Inspector. This is no substance in the contention of the applicant that the Public Analyst did not possess the requisite qualifications. The defence of the also without any substance. The sample of milk was taken on 27-9-74. It was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day. 2. The public Analyst analyse the sample on 24-10-74 and sent his report on 30-11-74. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 1-1-75. The accused did not exercise his right to get the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory Calcutta as provided under section 13(2) of the Act. In the circumstances the lower Courts were right in holding that there was no undue delay in filing the complaint and that it has not been shown that any prejudice was caused to the applicant on that ground. 3. In the circumstances the lower Courts were right in holding that there was no undue delay in filing the complaint and that it has not been shown that any prejudice was caused to the applicant on that ground. 3. In this revision, the counsel for the applicant raised another objection that it does appear from the statement of the Food Inspector and the complaint that the provisions of rule 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 as a mended were complied with. The original rule 9(j) was amended by GSR 205 13-2-74. The amended rule is follows: '9. Duty of a Food Inspector-It shall be the duty of the Food Inspector :- …………………………………….. (j) to send by registered post, a copy of the report received in from III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in care the sample conforms to the provision of the Act, or rules made thereunder, then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that it does not appear from the record that a copy of the report received from the Public Analyst was sent by registered post to the applicant within 10 days of the receipt of the said report and therefore the conviction of the applicant is not justified. This point was not taken at any stage of the proceedings either in the trial Court or in appeal. Even in the memo of revision this ground has not been raised. This being a question of fact for which no foundation was laid cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of arguments of the revision. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to consider in the revision the question raised by the learned counsel for the provisions of the rule 9(j) of the rules are directory in nature and non-compliance thereof may not necessary result in the acquittal of the person concerned unless prejudice is caused to, him on account of such non-compliance. In the circumstances the Courts, below were right in convicting the applicant under section 18(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and no interference is called for in the conviction of the applicant in this revision. Revision dismissed.