JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Ramesh Chandra and Suresh Chandra against the judgment of Sri J.C. Gupta, VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur dated 25-9-1980 by means of which he dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1980 and maintained the conviction of the applicants under section 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- against them by Sri S.K.I. Naqvi, Metropolitan Magistrate (Corporation). 2. Briefly stated that the prosecution story was that on 22-6-1977 at about 11 A.M. Sri B.L Gupta, Food Inspector found Suresh Chandra applicant selling mustard oil at the shop of his brother Ramesh Chandra in Mohalla Nawabganj, City of Kanpur. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and purchased some of the mustard oil on payment. This was divided in three parts and sealed in three clean phials and one of these when sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 15% T.C. oil. On receipt of this report the applicants were prosecuted and have been convicted as aforesaid. 3. This sample was collected on 22-6-1977 but it was sent to the Public Analyst on 29-6-1977 and the report of the Public Analyst shows that this sample was received by him on 29-7-1977. There could be therefore no doubt that the sample was taken to the Public Analyst seven days after it had been collected and it was urged that for this reason there was a breach of section 11(1)(c) and sub-section (3) of section 11 read with rule 17. 4. In Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 1980 (Gajraj v. State) it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that where time has been fixed for doing any particular duty assigned to a public servant it is only directory. In that case sample was collected on 17th October, and it was sent to the Public Analyst on 19th October and it was said there was breach of section 11(1)(c) and sub-section (3) of section II. It was, however, found that since the sample was sent to the Public Analyst expeditiously therefore, it cannot be said that these provisions of section 11 were breached. In spite of this decision, however, it is apparent that in this case the sample was sent seven days later and this was certainly not sending the sample expeditiously to the Public Analyst. In spite of this decision, however, it is apparent that in this case the sample was sent seven days later and this was certainly not sending the sample expeditiously to the Public Analyst. There was, therefore, breach of this section and of rule 17 which clearly lays down that the sample will not be sent later than the succeeding working day. 5. There was also no evidence on record in this case to show that any sanction for this prosecution was obtained. The Food Inspector merely said that P.C. Tikoria sent the complaint which was filed against the applicant, but it is not known who P.C. Tikoria was or how he filed this complaint without sanction. 6. For went of sanction, therefore, and also because there was breach of section 11(1)(c) and sub-section (3) read with rule 17 of the Act the conviction of the applicants was bad. 7. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicants are hereby set aside. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Fine, if paid shall be refunded to the applicants.