JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Ram Dhani who was convicted under section 7 read with section 16 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. According to the prosecution case Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh intercepted the appellant on 16-10-1975 at 10.45 A.M. in mohalla Brahma Sthan in Azamgarh town. He was carrying on bicycle a container containing buffalo milk for sale. The Food Inspector Sri Narendra Nath Singh gave a notice in Form No. 6 for taking his sample for analysis by the Public Analyst. He accordingly purchased 750 grams of buffalo milk after paying its price Rs. 1.50 to the appellant. The sample was divided into three parts and 16 drops of formalin were put in each sample. The samples were duly sealed. One of them was given to the appellant, another was retained in the office of the Medical Officer of Health, Azamgarh, and third was sent to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported milk fat 1.2% and non-fatty solids 1.8%. The sample was thus deficient by 80% in fatty contents and deficient by 10% in non-fatty solids. This was much below the percentage of fat and non-fatty solids required by the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rules made thereunder. The prosecution claims that the report of the Public Analyst was sent by Registered post to the appellant. A complaint was thereafter filed after obtaining sanction of the Medical Officer of Health, Azamgarh. The appellant denied that any sample of buffalo milk was obtained from him. He denied having received any notice from the Food Inspector or having received its price from the Food Inspector. He also denied having received sample containing formalin. He further denied having given any receipt of the payment of the price of the sample. He further denied having received by Registered post copy of the report of the Public Analyst. He also denied of the knowledge about the result of the analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst. 3. At the trial the prosecution examined Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh and the other two witnesses of fact Muneshwar (PW 2) and Jitendra Ram (PW 3). He also denied of the knowledge about the result of the analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst. 3. At the trial the prosecution examined Food Inspector Narendra Nath Singh and the other two witnesses of fact Muneshwar (PW 2) and Jitendra Ram (PW 3). Besides these witnesses Radhey Shyam Misra (PW 4) who is a clerk in the Nagar Mahapalika, Azamgarh stated that receipt no. 1220 dated 22-1-76 related to the sample in question. It appears that PW 2 Muneshwar and PW 3 Jitendra Ram did not support the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the testimony of Narendra Nath Singh (P W 1) and that of PW 4 Radhey Shyam Misra in convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error by relying on the sole testimony of the Food Inspector and in view of the mandatory nature of the rule 9 (j) of the Food Adulteration Rules the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained. Rule 9 (j) applies to the facts of the case on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 16-10-1975. Rule 9 (j) as it appiled to the facts of this case stood as follow:- "To send by registered post a copy of the report received in Form III from the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken within ten days of the receipt of the said report. However, in case the sample conforms to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder then the person may be informed of the same and report need not be sent." 5. In this case the Food Inspector has stated that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the appellant by Registered post. However, the receipt of the registration has not been filed. The clerk of the Municipal Board Sri Radhey Shyam Misra was produced. He stated that in the register of Mahapalika receipt no. 1220 was entered. It related to the sample of this case. This was sent on 22-1-76. He had also stated that the original receipt was lost and was not traceable even after its search. In cross-examination he, however, stated that he was unable to tell entry of receipt no. 1220 related to the sample of this case or to which it related. It related to the sample of this case. This was sent on 22-1-76. He had also stated that the original receipt was lost and was not traceable even after its search. In cross-examination he, however, stated that he was unable to tell entry of receipt no. 1220 related to the sample of this case or to which it related. In such circumstances the prosecution can not be held to have proved that the copy of the report was sent to the appellant. Section 13 (2) as it stood before its amendment on the date of the occurrence of this case requires that after the institution of a prosecution under this Act the accused vendor or the complainant may, on payment of the prescribed fee make an application to the court for sending the part of the sample mentioned in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 11 to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for a certificate specifying the result of his analysis. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that the provisions of rule 9 (j) are mandatory and should have been followed in this case. There is no doubt that there are some single Judge rulings of this Court including one of mine in which the view was taken that the provisions of rule 9 (j) was mandatory and should have been followed. However, a Division Bench of our Court in Cr. Revision No. 1050 of 1957 Sumar Chand v. State had taken the view that rule 9 (j) was directory and not mandatory. The accused in such case would have to show that the prejudice has been caused to him on account of non- service of report on him. The appellant himself had the opportunity of applying for sending the sample for analysis by the Director of Food Laboratories. In the instant case on behalf of the appellant it was not shown that any prejudice was caused to him on account of non-service of the report of the Public Analyst on him as required by Rule 9 (j). This contention has, therefore, no force. Coming now to the merits of the case the Food Inspector is the only witness against the appellant. He stated that in Mohalla Brahma Sthan he had found the appellant carrying buffalo milk for sale in the town. This contention has, therefore, no force. Coming now to the merits of the case the Food Inspector is the only witness against the appellant. He stated that in Mohalla Brahma Sthan he had found the appellant carrying buffalo milk for sale in the town. He informed him that he was Food Inspector and would take his sample of milk for analysis by the Public Analyst. He gave him a notice in Form 6 Ex. Ka-11. It bears his signature. He, however, claimed that he purchased buffalo milk 750 grams in weight and paid its price Rs. 1.50 to the appellant. He had taken its receipt Ex. Ka-2. This receipt bears thumb impression of the appellant and also the signatures of PW 2 Muneshwar and PW 3 Jitendra Ram. This receipt also mentioned that one of the sealed bottles of the sample was given to the appellant. In view of this receipt it is difficult to hold that the sample of milk was not taken from the appellant as one bottle was given to the appellant who had himself thumb marked its receipt. The question, however, arises if this receipt was witnessed by a witness when the sample was taken as required by Section 10 (7) of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. So far as this question is concerned the receipt Ex. Ka-1 has been signed by both Muneshwar (PW 2) and Jitendra Ram (PW 3) has not supported the prosecution case but PW 2 Muneshwar does not deny it completely. He only states that when he came, the sample had already been taken and he was asked to give his signature and he, therefore, put his signature on it. The Food Inspector, however, asserts that he had taken the sample in the presence of these witnesses and had also given their signatures on Ex. Ka-2. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the Food Inspector on this point. 7. The report of the Public Analyst clearly shows that the milk was very much short of fat contents and non-fatty solids. It was deficient by 80%. The appellants had, therefore, been rightly found guilty of the offence in question. The prosecution has successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore he was rightly convicted. However, in the circumstances of the case the sentence imposed on the appellant appears excessive. It was deficient by 80%. The appellants had, therefore, been rightly found guilty of the offence in question. The prosecution has successfully established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore he was rightly convicted. However, in the circumstances of the case the sentence imposed on the appellant appears excessive. It shall, therefore, be reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment and this fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed shall be maintained. 8. The conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained. His sentence, however, is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months but the fine is maintained. The period for which the appellant has been in jail shall be accounted for in the total period of his sentence. This appeal is decided accordingly. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed.