JUDGMENT.- The petitioner is found guilty under section 16 (1) (a) read with section 7 (1) and section 2 (1-a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The case of the prosecution is that A-2 is the father of A-1, who was a owner of the Kirana General Stores, that while A-2 was sitting in the shop, the Food Inspector (P.W. 1) visited the shop and took a sample of gingelly oil from him and that the sample was found to be adulterated by mixing palmoleinoil. Relying on the report of the Analyst and the other evidence of the Food Inspector both the Courts below convicted the accused and awarded him a minimum sentence of 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1.000 and in default R.I. for 6 months. 2. In this revision it is submitted that there was a delay of 32 days in sending the Analyst report to the accused and therefore there is a contravention of section 13 (2) of the Act and hence the convictions are to be set aside. Relying on a judgment of Muktadar, J., reported in Public Prosecutor, In re1, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the violation of section 13 (2) is fatal to the prosecution. In that case a revision was filed by the State against the order of the trial Court discharging the accused on the ground that notices as contemplated under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been served immediately as prescribed under rule 9 of the Rules. The learned single Judge affirmed the view taken by the trial Court. But in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal2 it is held that rule 9 (j) is only directory. Recently, rule 9-A is introduced which also took effect that the report should be sent immediately. The Supreme Court in holding that the rule was only directory held that where no prejudice was caused there could be no cause for complaint. 3. It must be mentioned here that a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Public Prosecutor v. K.J. Muralidhar3 also considered the scope of section 13 (2) and rule 9 (j) . Under the said rule the same has to be sent within 10 days. The Division Bench held that the rule is mandatory and the accused is entitled to acquittal where there is no compliance. Under the said rule the same has to be sent within 10 days. The Division Bench held that the rule is mandatory and the accused is entitled to acquittal where there is no compliance. The Division Bench however added that if there is some delay or if the delay is so slight, i.e., one day, unless prejudice is shown, the complainant's case should not be thrown out. Thejudgment of the Division Bench was also delivered by Muktadar, J. The Supreme Court in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal4 overruled this judgment to the extent it lays down that rule 9 (j) was mandatory. The Supreme Court further laid down that — “Where the effect of ion-compliance with the rule was such as to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the public analyst's report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory there could be just cause for complaint as prejudice would then be writ large, where no prejudice was caused there could be no cause for complaint.” Therefore, rule 9-A, which is same as old rule 9 (j), is only directory and is not mandatory. Unless prejudice is shown the mere delay in sending the sample is not a ground to reject the prosecution case. Where there is prejudice; the facts of each case have not to be examined carefully. 4. In the instant case the sample taken is that of gingelly oil and the public analyst did not say that the sample was in any manner unfit for analysis nor was there any deterioration in the sample that was sent. Therefore no prejudice has been caused to the accused merely because there was some delay in sending the sample. It may also be mentioned here that the accused did not make any application at any time requesting the; Court to send his sample to the Central Food Laboratory. 5. For all the above reasons the criminal revision case is dismissed. C.V.N.R. ----- Criminal revision dismissed.