JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under Section 7/16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he is to undergo two months R.I. His conviction and sentence have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Hence this Revision. 2. According to the prosecution case the Food Inspector purchased a sample of goat milk from the applicant on 3rd March 1978 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials which was sent for analysis to the public analyst disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty contents to the extent of 8%. After obtaining sanction the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 3. Both the courts below on a consideration of the evidence on record have held the guilt of the applicant fully established. 1 do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact to warrant interference in revision. 4. Applicants Counsel has contended that there has been no compliance of Section 11(3) of the Act, inasmuch as the sample was not sent immediately after the date on which it was taken by the Food Inspector. It was held by this Court that Section 11(3) of the Act is directory and not mandatory. 5. Applicants counsel has next argued that the complaint in the instant case was instituted on 1-1-1979. After a lapse of about nine months the sample was bound to deteriorate and as such, he has been deprived of his right of sending the sample for re-analysis under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is not disputed that the applicant did not make any such application and this Court cannot speculate that the sample which was preserved by a mixture of formalin had deteriorated on the date when the prosecution had started. If the applicant desired to take advantage of this fact, it was incumbent upon him to make such an application for sending his samples for reanalysis to the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, which was not done in this case. As such, this contention has no force. 6. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the deficiency was only to the extent of 8% in non-fatty solids and that the fat contents were above the prescribed standard. As such, this contention has no force. 6. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the deficiency was only to the extent of 8% in non-fatty solids and that the fat contents were above the prescribed standard. In these circumstances, he has argued that the average of both fat and non-fatty solids should be taken into consideration. And if that is done, then no offence would be made out. This argument overlooks the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1975 (I) FAC 271 Municipal Committee v. Hazare Singh wherein it has been clearly held that the deficiency even in non-fatty solids is sufficient to hold the applicant guilty of the offence. 7. Counsel for the applicant then argued on the question of sentence. The minimum sentence that could be imposed under Section 7/16 of the said Act, after its amendment, has been awarded in this case, and therefore, no interference is possible. 8. Thus 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 remaining portion of the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him. The interim order passed by this Court on 8-1-1980 is hereby vacated.