JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 1981 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant by the Corporation Magistrate, Varanasi under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. On 19th October, 1974 at about 2-00 P.M. Sri Sudhir Kumar Bhatia, Food Inspector, collected samples of turmeric from the shop of the applicant. Due formalities, as prescribed under the rules, were complied with. One part of it was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported It to be adulterated and a complaint was thereafter submitted for the prosecution of the applicant. The trial court found the applicant guilty of the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment, The applicant then filed an appeal which resulted in dismissal vide the judgment of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge dated 2nd of March, 1981 and hence this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant urged before me that rule 9(1) of the Rules framed under the Act, which was in force when the sample in question was taken, was not complied with. According to rule 9(J), a, copy of the report of the Public Analyst has to be sent to the person from whose possession the sample is taken within ten days of the receipt of the report. In the instant case, the report of the Public Analyst is dated 3rd February, 1974. The complaint was filed on 21st June, 1975. It contains a reference to the report of the Public Analyst and, consequently, it should be presumed that the report had been received before the complaint was filed. The evidence furnished by the prosecution was that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was given to the applicant's son per endorsement made on the report. This endorsement of acknowledgement of receipt is dated 12th December, 1975. It is, therefore, obvious that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not furnished to the applicant within the prescribed time. On the contrary, it was furnished to the applicant's son with exorbitant delay. This endorsement of acknowledgement of receipt is dated 12th December, 1975. It is, therefore, obvious that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not furnished to the applicant within the prescribed time. On the contrary, it was furnished to the applicant's son with exorbitant delay. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred me to a decision of this Court in case Vijai Singh v. State of U.P., 1981 (1) FAC 191 in which the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the accused within the time prescribed by the rules and this Court held that this was fatal for the prosecution. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has not referred me to any decision in which contrary view may have been taken. 4. This revision is, accordingly, allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bonds furnished by him stands discharged.