Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner was the accused in C. C. No 506 of 1977 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate of Wadakkancherry. He was charge-sheeted by the Food Inspector, Wadakkancherry, for an offence under S.16 read with S.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accusation against the petitioner was that he had with him buffalo milk for sale which on analysis was found to contain 28% water and hence was below standard. 2. The petitioner's case was that he purchased the milk from a hotel and he was taking it to home since he bad a few guests. The trial court after evidence found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. On appeal, this conviction and sentence were confirmed. Hence this revision. 3. The case put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conviction is bad for the fact that the Food Inspector had not complied with the mandatory provision contained in S 10 (4) and 10 (7). I find this case has been properly considered by the Courts below and the finding entered on such consideration does not call for interference. Even so, a further case has now been put forward by the petitioner's learned counsel which needs to be considered. According to him, the evidence in this case would indicate that there has not been compliance with R.17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Till 1-4-1976 the Food Inspector was obliged under the provisions of the Act and the Rules to hand over one sample to the accused. This requirement has been taken away by the new S.11 of Act 34 of 1976. Under the amended section one of the parts is to be sent to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the local health authority. The manner in which the sample is to be despatched is mentioned in R.17. The sample to be sent to the Public Analyst should have an outer-cover. The public analyst on receipt of the package shall compare the seals on the container and the outer-cover with the specimen impression received by him separately and shall note the conditions of the seal thereon. This is provided in R.17. This is a clear departure from the old practice. The public analyst on receipt of the package shall compare the seals on the container and the outer-cover with the specimen impression received by him separately and shall note the conditions of the seal thereon. This is provided in R.17. This is a clear departure from the old practice. I have before me the report of the public analyst in this case After the amendment mentioned above, the form of the report of the Public Analyst has been changed suitably. The report in this case does not contain any mention about the outer cover. The following sentence should find a place therein, "The seal on the container and the outer-cover". In the report Ext. P6 in this case the seal of the container alone has been tallied with the specimen impression. This, it is rightly contended, affects the entire prosecution. Non-compliance with this mandatory provision vitiates, according to the petitioner's counsel, the prosecution itself. 4. I have already held that by the new amendment, a valuable right available to the accused bad been taken away. That right is now safeguarded by the new provision. Non-compliance with such provision, in my judgment, taints the entire prosecution with an illegality. 5. Since in this case there is non-compliance with this mandatory provision, the conviction and sentence entered against the petitioner are unsustainable. The case against the petitioner for this reason is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. I quash the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner and allow this criminal revision petition.