JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 1 years R.T. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- by the trial court. His conviction has been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Badaun but the sentence imposed upon him has been reduced to 1 year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1500/-. Hence this revision. 2. I have perused the impugned order. 3. According to the prosecution case, the Food Inspector has taken a sample of Rangeen Barfi from the shop of the applicant in Kakora Mela at 9 A.M. on 9-11-1976 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst whose report disclosed that it has been coloured with a prohibited dye and as such it was adulterated. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. Both the courts below have concurrently held the prosecution case established. They have come to the conclusion relying upon the report of the Public Analyst that the sample in question was coloured with an unpermitted dye rendering the applicant liable for the offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. A point was raised in the court below that there has been no compliance of R.I. 9(j) framed under the P.F. Rules. This question has been dealt with by the Sessions Judge, Badaun. The view expressed by him is correct. The report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. Even if it was slightly belated no prejudice has been caused to him. It has been held by this court that R.I. 9(J) is merely directory and not mandatory. Therefore, on this ground the conviction of the applicant can not be set aside. 5. There is no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment. The stay order passed by this court staying realisation of fine is vacated,