JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgment and order of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, dismissing an appeal of the applicant Ram Swarup and upholding his conviction under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 20th December, 1975, at about 6 P.M., Sri V.N. Kulshreshtha, Food Inspector, gave notice to the applicant that he was purchasing the sample for analysis by the Public Analyst and purchased Pears from the applicant and sent one of the parts of the sample to the Public Analyst, who reported that it contained unpermitted Coal Tar Dye. 3. The applicant was, accordingly, prosecuted for an offence under Sections 16/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was no compliance of R.I. 9(j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. In that R.I. the Food Inspector had to supply a copy of the report of the Public Analyst within ten days from the receipt thereof to the person proposed to be proceeded against. This objection was taken by the applicant both in the trial court and in the lower appellate court. The trial court gave a finding that no copy of the report of the Public Analyst had been supplied to the applicant. However, both the courts below held that no prejudice has been shown to the applicant. 5. Inasmuch as R.I. 9(j) was held to be mandatory in Puttu Lal v. State of U.P. 1980 (1) FAC 327, the applicant could not be convicted. 6. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentences of the applicant are set aside. The applicant is on bail, to which he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties arc discharged. The amount of fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him.