JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 7 (i) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter described as the act), for the alleged sale of adulterated buffalo milk, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, imposed upon him, thereunder, by the Courts below. ( 2. ) ON 29-4-1978, Dinesh Kumar Kulshershthya P. W. 1, Food inspector, Guna, purchased 660 ml. of milk from one of the two milk cans carried by the petitioner. The milk sample was divided into three equal parts and filled in three clean and dry bottles, which were duly fastened and sealed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor. One of these bottles was sent for analysis, to the Public Analyst, Gwalior. Under the report dated 16-5-1978 (Ex. P-8), given by the latter, it was disclosed that the milk sample contained 2. 5% of fat and 5. 1% of solid non-fats, which did not conform to the standard prescribed therefor (5% and 9% respectively ). Accordingly, the Food Inspector filed the complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, on 5-6-1978. It was alleged that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner, along with the covering memo, dated 14-6-1978 (Ex. P-9) in accordance with the requirement of section 13 (2) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 3. ) RELYING on the evidence furnished by Food Inspector Dinesh Kumar Kulshershthya P. W. 1 and public witness Ravindra Kumar P. W. 2, as also the documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-9, filed in the case, the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as described in para 1 above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the sessions Judge, Guna, under his judgment dated 26-5-1981. ( 4. P-1 to Ex. P-9, filed in the case, the learned trial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as described in para 1 above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the sessions Judge, Guna, under his judgment dated 26-5-1981. ( 4. ) BEFORE the trial Court, the petitioner took the defences to the effect that the sample obtained from him was not of Buffalo milk, but, consisted of a mixture of buffalo and cow milk; that the milk-can from which the sample was obtained was not meant for sale, but, for private consumption; that the formalities prescribed under the Act and the Rules were not duly complied with, and particularly, that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not sent to the petitioner as required by Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter described as the rules ). ( 5. ) THE defence pleas, described above have been taken due notice by the Courts below, and they have been adequately dealt with by them. As regards the milk sample, it has been disbelieved that it was a mixture of buffalo and cow milk, but, at the same time, it has also been observed that the sample even did not conform to the standard prescribed for the mixture of buffalo and cow milk. The plea that the milk was not meant for sale, hut, was for private consumption has also been disbelieved and for adequate reasons. The sheet-anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court related to the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of rule 9-A of the Rules. The offence relates to the date 29-4-1978 and on that date this Rule was effective, having come into force on 4-1-1977. ( 6. The sheet-anchor of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court related to the alleged non-compliance of the provisions of rule 9-A of the Rules. The offence relates to the date 29-4-1978 and on that date this Rule was effective, having come into force on 4-1-1977. ( 6. ) THE Rule 9-A referred to above reads as below :- "9-A. Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned.-The Local (Health) Authority shall immediately after the institution of prosecution forward copy of the report of the result of analysis in form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of the article was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A of the Act: provided that where the sample conforms to the provisions of the act or the rules made thereunder, and no prosecution is intended under sub-section (2), or no action is intended under sub-section (2-E) of section 13 of the Act, the Local (Health) Authority shall intimate the result to the vendor from whom the sample has been taken and also to the person, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A of the Act, whithin 10 days from the receipt of the report from the Public Analyst". ( 7. ) IN regard to the compliance of the rule, the evidence furnished is only that of Food Inspector Dinesh Kumar Kulshershthya P. W. 1 who has testified to the effect that the copy of the Public Analysts report dated 17-5-1978 (Ex. P-8) was sent by the Local (Health) Authority to the petitioner under the covering memo dated 14-6-1978 (Ex. P-9) by registered post. There is an endorsement on Fx. P-9 to the effect "registered A. D. " signifying that a copy thereof, along with the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner by registered-post. No doubt it would have been better, if the postal acknowledgement regarding the receipt of the paper or the postal receipt relating to payment of postal charges had been fifed among the documents relied on by the prosecution. No doubt it would have been better, if the postal acknowledgement regarding the receipt of the paper or the postal receipt relating to payment of postal charges had been fifed among the documents relied on by the prosecution. However, the fact cannot also be lost sight of that in course of the proceedings before the trial Court, no grievance has been made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that a copy of the Public Analysts report had not been sent to him, nor was any prayer made for the analysis of one of the samples by the Central Food Laboratory under section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 8. ) EVEN assuming that the provisions of Rule 9-A of the Rules were not strictly complied with, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on this count in the present revision. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that Rule 9-A has been introduced in place of sub-rule 9 (j ). Though there are minor differences in the provisions of these two rules, the principle underlying both is the same. Now, with reference to the provisions of sub-rule 9 (j), it has been held equally by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation, Bhopal and another, Cr No 1437 of 1982 decided on 11th June, 1982, reported in 1982 (II) P. F A. Cases at page 29. , as also by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Food Inspector Municipal council, Mandsaur v. Ranglal Gujar, Cr A No 205 of 1979 decided on 13th July, 1982, reported in 1982 (II) P. F A. Cases at page 150, that the provisions of sub-rule 9 (j)were directory and not mandatory: that in the absence of accused having not been able to show any prejudice, the conviction is not liable to be set aside merely on the basis of the non-compliance of this Rule. I am of the view that this principle would be equally applicable in the case of any breach of Rule 9-A too. In view of these cases, the case Devideen v. State of M. P. , Cr. Rev. No 99-82, decided on 13-8-1982, reported in Cr. I am of the view that this principle would be equally applicable in the case of any breach of Rule 9-A too. In view of these cases, the case Devideen v. State of M. P. , Cr. Rev. No 99-82, decided on 13-8-1982, reported in Cr. L. R. (MP), 1982 Note 201, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner can no longer be held to be good law in so far as it relays to the point presently under consideration. ( 9. ) IN the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leniency in the matter of sentence imposed upon the petitioner-accused. However, no such extenuating circumstances have been brought to my notice, as would justify the imposition of any sentence less than that prescribed under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. ( 10. ) THE revision is accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, for undergoing the remaining term of his jail sentence, the fine amount having been already deposited by him. Revision dismissed.