JUDGMENT J.P. Chaturvedi, J. - This is a revision against a judgment and order of the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur dismissing an appeal of the applicant Ram Singh and upholding his conviction under section 16 read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called P.F. Act) and maintaining the sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 28th of April, 1977 at 10 a.m. Food Inspector, Amrik Singh Baweja, found the applicant selling cow-milk in front of premises No. 127/27 Hamirpur Road, Police station Juhi, District Kanpur. After disclosing his identity and giving him a notice that he was Food Inspector and that he wanted to take a sample for the purpose of analysis, he purchased 660 ml. cow milk from the applicant and paid a sum of Rs. 1.31 p. for the same. He obtained receipt for the price of the sample milk, divided the sample milk in three parts and sent one of them, after having duly sealed it, to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that the sample milk contained 3.7% of milk fat and 7.9% of non-fatty solids and that it was adulterated being 12% less in non-fatty solids. A complaint was accordingly made against the applicant. 3. The prosecution examined Food Inspector Amrik Singh Baweja and S.K. Joshi. The courts below relying upon their testimony convicted and sentenced the applicant as already stated. 4. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He stated that he was taking the milk to Sheonath Singh for Katha and that it was not for sale. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was non-compliance of sub-section (7) of section 10 of the P.F. Act; that there was also non-compliance of R.I. 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which was mandatory; and that the deficiency was negligible. 6. As to first contention it may be mentioned that Amrik Singh Baweja stated that he called upon those persons who had collected at the place to become witnesses, and that they refused to sign as witnesses. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the case, that the provision had not been complied with. 7. 6. As to first contention it may be mentioned that Amrik Singh Baweja stated that he called upon those persons who had collected at the place to become witnesses, and that they refused to sign as witnesses. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the case, that the provision had not been complied with. 7. R.I. 17 of the P.F.A. Rules requires that one part of the sample shall be sent for analysis to the Public Analyst in a sealed packet immediately but not later than the next working day by suitable means. No doubt the word 'shall' has been used in the R.I. but it does not appear that the Legislature intended the R.I. to be mandatory. The purpose of the R.I. was to safe-guard the tampering of the sample so that it may not become unfit for analysis. It was also probably the intention that there should be no undue delay which may cause deterioration of the sample. In the present case the Public Analyst found the sample duly sealed and its contents were not deteriorated. Considering the purpose of the rule, therefore, it appears that the R.I. was not intended to be mandatory so that its non-compliance may vitiate the entire proceeding as alleged by the learned counsel. 8. It was next urged that according to the standard a cow milk is to contain 3.5% of fat and 8.5% of non-fatty solids. The fat contents were above the standard. But non-fatty solids were a little less than the prescribed minimum. In the present case the deficiency was almost negligible. The case is covered by clause (1) of the first proviso of section 16 P.F. Act and as such the minimum sentence of three months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- will meet the ends of justice. 9. The revision is, therefore, allowed to the extent that the conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 16 read with section 7 of the P.F. Act is maintained but the sentence is reduced to three months R I and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine the applicant shall undergo further R.I. for three months. The applicant is on bail to which he shall surrender. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.