Judgment P.N. Harkauli, J. 1. GAYA Prasad, applicant, was convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Hence this revision. 2. THE prosecution case in brief was that on 24-8-1976 the Food Inspector B. L. Shukla (P. W. 1) took a sample of the Barfi which the applicant had exposed for sale at his shop situate in Panki, Kanpur, and he sent it; for analysis to the Public Analyst who reported that it was adulterated inasmuch as it was coloured with a prohibited coaltar dye. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He denied that he was selling the Barfi. He alleged that he had himself purchased it for offering it at the temple and the Food Inspector wrongly took a sample from him. 3. THE Id. Magistrate believed the evidence of the Food Inspector and convicted and sentenced the applicant and, as already mentioned, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upheld his judgment. 4. THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was noncompliance with the provisions of Section 13 (2), Section 11 (1) (c) (i) and (iii), Sec. 13 (2) and Rules 9 (i) and 18 and the violations of these provisions of law, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, vitiated the conviction. It is clear from the statement of the Food Inspector himself that he did not comply with the provisions of section 11 (1) (c) (i) (ii). The aforesaid provisions make it clear that it is the duty of the Food Inspector who took the sample to - (a) Send one of the parts of the sample to the Public Analyst, and (b) Send the remaining two parts to the local (health) authority. 5. THE Food Inspector Sri B. K. Shukla (P. W. 1) has clearly stated in the examination in chief itself that he sent all the three phials containing the samples to the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari and that the phial which was sent to the Public Analyst was sent to him not by the Food Inspector but (by the office of the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari. Thus it is clear that on the own showing of the Food Inspector the provisions of section 11 (1) (c) (i) and (ii) were not complied with. It appears to me that the provision that the Food Inspector shall send one of the parts of the sample for analysis to the Public Analyst, is mandatory. I say this not only because of the word 'Shall' in section 11 but also because this provision appears to be intended to ensure that the sample which is to be sent to the Public Analyst is sent to him without delay and without the intervention of any third person to avoid any possibility of tampering with the sample. If this provision is mandatory, it is obvious the non-compliance of this provision must vitiate the conviction. In this view of the matter, I do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the other provisions mentioned above have been complied with or not. 6. THE application is accordingly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside; THE applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. If he has paid the fine the same shall be refunded. Application allowed.