JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. 1. THIS revision is directed, against order dated 2-10- 1981 by Sri V. P. Mathur, learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by which he partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1981 and reduced the sentence of revisionist to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. THUS, the conviction of revisionist recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur by his order dated 30-7-12)81 in Case No. 226 of 1980 convicting revisionist under Section 7 read with Section 16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was affirmed but the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment, and fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment was maintained as given above. Prosecution story briefly stated was that on 17-10-1979, at about 9.30 A. M., Food Inspector found the revisionist carrying Dahi (curd) for sale in a pot on his cycle in village Maujepur. Food Inspector Sri Riyaz Ahmad (PW 1) suspected it to be adulterated. He disclosed his identity and purchased 750 grams Dahi on payment of Rs. 1.12 paise in presence of Raja Ram Yadav PW 2. After completing all necessary formalities, one phial was sent to Public Analyst who found Dahi to be adulterated as it contained fat 0.40 per cent and non fatty solids 4.89 per cent. Thus it was grossly deficit to the extent of 6 per cent in fat and 9 per cent in non fatty solids vide report Ext. Ka-6 dated 24-11-1979. The report disclosed that the sample at the time of analysis was fit for analysis and was properly sealed and fastened and the seals were intact. 3. AT the time of sampling documents Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2, bearing thumb impressions of revisionist were procured by Food Inspector and memorandum Form VII was prepared. However, revisionist clevery gave him name as Laxmi but the Food Inspector felt suspicious and demanded sureties and so he was sent to Police Station Jahanabad to ascertain his correct name and address vide letter Ext. Ka-3. The information was conveyed by Station Officer, Jahanabad that the correct name of revisionist was Gajraj son of Ujagar and so the matter was also brought to the notice of Chief Medical Officer as well as to the Public Analyst. 4. Ka-3. The information was conveyed by Station Officer, Jahanabad that the correct name of revisionist was Gajraj son of Ujagar and so the matter was also brought to the notice of Chief Medical Officer as well as to the Public Analyst. 4. IN support of their case, prosecution examined Riyaz Ahmad (PW I) and Raja Ram (PW 2) as witnesses of fact and Ram Krishna (PW 3) as a formal witness to prove the sanction for prosecution accorded by Chief Medical Officer. In his statement, revisionist conceded that the sample was seized from him but it was purchased by him for the purposes of Katha. It was not meant for sale. He further conceded that his correct name was Gajraj and he did receive the copy of the report of Public Analyst along with covering letter despatched to him in compliance of Rule 9-A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but he never applied for reanalysis by Director, Central Food Laboratory. 5. IN defence, he examined Harish Chandra (DW 1). He testified that he handed over Rs. 25/- to Gajraj for purchasing 8.10 Kgs. Dahi in connection with the Katha ceremony at the house of his servant Nanhoo. 6. THE courts below believed the prosecution case and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. I have heard learned Advocates for parties and perused the record. 7. SRI R. B. Sahai, learned Advocate for revisionist, argued before me that in his statement Food Inspector did not testify that at the time of sale, it was held by revisionist that the Dahi was of buffalo milk and under such circumstances, if it was below the requisite standard of Dahi as laid in Item No. A.11.02.04 Appendix I of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it was wrong to judge the curd on the standard of minimum percentage of milk fat and milk solid of buffalo milk. 8. 8. IN this connection, he relied upon Hari Krishna v. State, 1980 ACrR 13 = 1980 ACC 43 in which case there was no disclosure by the vendor about the curd having been prepared from cow or she-buffalo milk at the time of sampling viz., on April 23, 1977 at about 12.50 P. M. to Food INspector Sri S. K. Misra; it was found that the fat contents in the sample were short by 2.60 per cent; the Public Analyst found the shortage on the assumption that the curd had been prepared with buffalo milk. It was observed : - " Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Appendix B, Entries Nos. A.11.01.11, A.11.02.04-Sample of Dahi taken by Food INspector-No enquiry made from applicant about milk from which Dahi was prepared- Applicant himself not snowing that curd was prepared from buffalo's milk-No presumption that curd was prepared from buffalo's milk-Appellant cannot be held guilty under Section 7/16 of Act." It was further observed in the same authority :- " From the facts stated above, the curd purchased from the applicant cannot be said to be adulterated within the meaning of clause (a). It cannot also be said to be below the standard prescribed for curd prepared from cow's milk. As already stated, according to the report of the Public Analyst, the specimen of curd sent to him for analysis contained more milk fat and more milk solid non-fat than that which is prescribed for curd prepared from cow's milk. The applicant cannot, therefore, be held to be guilty of adulteration within the meaning of the Act." Under these circumstances, the revision was allowed. 9. IN the instant case, it appears that the milk fat and non-fatty solids were much below the standard laid for the curd prepared from cow milk and under such circumstances, the said authority is clearly distinguishable as was held in M. V. Joshi v. M. U. Simpi, reported in the same authority at page 16. So this contention is ruled out. 10. THE next contention was that there has been non compliance of Rules 19 and 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as no formalin was added to the curd at the time of sampling as was laid under Rule 20 which reads as below ;- " 20. So this contention is ruled out. 10. THE next contention was that there has been non compliance of Rules 19 and 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as no formalin was added to the curd at the time of sampling as was laid under Rule 20 which reads as below ;- " 20. Preservative in respect of milk, cream, dahi, khoa and gur-THE preservative used in the case of samples of any milk (including toned, separated and skimmed milk) (standardised milk chhanna, skimmed milk chhanna), (cream, ice-cream, mixed ice-cream, ice-candy, (dahi, khoa and gur) in liquid or semi- liquid form shall be the liquid commonly known as "formalin" that is to say, a liquid containing about 40 per cent of formaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion of (0.1 mil. two drops) for 25 m. or 25 grams)". However, the aforesaid rule is simply directory in nature and not mandatory as was held in (1979) 2 SCC 202 which provides that unless prejudice has been shown, the aforesaid rule has to be treated as directory. In Food Inspector v. K. Cooperative Society, 1978 CrLJ 532 (Ker), it was held that provisions of Rule 20 arc directory in nature. What is required by this rule was only substantial compliance and not strict compliance. In the instant case, the report of Public Analyst did not disclose that the sample was in decomposed condition. On the other hand, the report., Ext. Ka-6, of Public Analyst shows that the sample was found in a fit condition for analysis when the aforesaid test was done. 11. THE last contention put forward before me was that the sample was obtained on 17-10-1979 and was received by the Public Analyst on 23-10-1979 and examined on 24-10-1979 and was sent to the vender on 22-2-1980. Thus, there has been a violation of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. In this connection, my attention was invited to Basantu v. State of U. P., 1982 ALJ 882 = 1982 ACrR 205 where it was observed " (E) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (1955), Rule 9-A-Food Inspector's failure to send the Public Analyst's report to the offender within 10 days of the receipt thereof; held vitiated the proceeding-THE rule was mandatory in nature." 12. IN that case, sample was taken on 4-12-1975, sample was sent through special messenger to public analyst for analysis on 6-12-1975; report was drawn on 1-1-1976. Thus, it was observed in para 24 that it was not possible to accept that the report remained lying in the office of Public Analyst uncared for upto 20-1-1976 where there is intrinsic evidence on record to show that these were lying in the office of Dy. CMO (H), Azamgarh even on 13-1-1976. Under these circumstances, it was held that these reports were not sent by the Food INspector to the appellant within 10 days of their receipt as was obligatory under the rules. It appears that the aforesaid Rule 9-A was introduced with effect from 4-1-1977 in place of earlier Rule 9 (j) which made it mandatory on the part of the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report to the accused. So after the said amendment, it is not possible to hold that its non observance alone could vitiate the proceedings. It was admitted by the vendor that he did receive an acknowledgement and he was not; prejudiced in any manner. It appears that in Basantu v. State of U. P. (supra), sampling was done by a Food Inspector who had initially no jurisdiction to seize the sample as the Deputy Chief Medical Officer was not competent to authorise him to seize the sample from the area from where the sample was seized from the offender. So there was total lack of jurisdiction which went to the root of the matter. 13. IT was held by the Full Bench of Gujrat High Court in M. M. Pandya v. Bhagwandas Chiranjilal, 1979 CrLJ 1440 (Guj) (FB) that so far as the prejudice occasioned by such delay is concerned, it can never be said that non-compliance with the time-limit specified in Rule 9 (j) (rule at that time) can prejudice in defence. Such objection was not raised in the courts below in this case and cannot be permitted to be raisied in revision before this Court vide Puttu Lal v. State (1980) FAC 32.7 = 1979 ACrR 444 of this Court decided by brother J. M. L. Sinha. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to hold that there was any bar which vitiated the proceeding when this point was never raised in courts below. 14. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to hold that there was any bar which vitiated the proceeding when this point was never raised in courts below. 14. IN the result the conviction is affirmed. As regards the sentence, it has been brought to my notice that the revisionist had already been in detention from 20-10-1981 upto 4-12-1981. Thus, the revision is dismissed with the observation that while up-holding the sentence, the revisionist shall undergo the remainder of sentence viz., four months and fifteen days only. The sentence of fine is also affirmed. Stay order dated 4-12-19811 is vacated. Revisionist is on bail. Let him surrender to his bonds forthwith and be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. Revision dismissed.