JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. 1. This revision is directed against order dated 24-7-82 recorded by Shri Jai Shanker Dubey, V Additional Sessions Jadge, Meerut, who dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1981 and upheld the conviction of revisionists as recorded by Sri V. K. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate on 7-1-81 in Case No. 1753 of 1980 under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act sentencing each of them to six months' RI and fine of Rs 1,000 each. In default of payment of fine, defaulter was further ordered to undergo three months' imprisonment. 2. Jagdish Prasad revisionist is father of Ram Autar. The revisionist dealt in milk and curds under the style of M/s. Jagdish Dairy situate in Shahgasha Mandi Mariwara, Meerut. On 3-5-79 at 8.30 a.m. Chief Food Inspector Sri B. K. Agarwal PW 1 found Ram Autar revisionist selling "seprata" curd. Chief Food Inspector disclosed his identify vide service of the notice exhibit Ka 1 from no. VI. Ram Autar gave the name of the owner as Jagdish Prasad. 600 miligrams of curd was purchased by Food Inspector for a sum of 8.90paisa in presence of witnesses Krishna Gopal etc. vide receipt Ka 2 and memoranda form exhibit Ka 3 was drawn. After samplying in accordance with rules report of public analyst exhibit Ka 4 was obtained, which disclosed fat 0.50 percent and non-fatty milk solids 6.62 percent. Thus there was deficiency of 8.7 per cent in non fatty solids. Necessary sanction for prosecution exhibit Ka 7 was procured by Chief Food Inspector through letter Exhibit Ka 6. The sanction was accorded by Sri B. C. Saxena after perusal of all the papers, complaint was filed in the Court vide Exhibit Ka 8. Revisionist was informed about the matter. Under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the sample was re analysed at the request of revisionist by Director Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, who found milk fat 0.4 percent and milk solids of non-fat 6.4 percent and thus it was found that the sample was below the minimum prescribed standard. 3. Prosecution examined Sri B. K. Agarwal, Chief Food Inspector PW 1, who proved the aforesaid documents exhibits Ka 1 to Ka 8 and detailed the aforesaid facts. 4. In his statement, Ram Autar admitted the sampling and his signatures on the receipt. 3. Prosecution examined Sri B. K. Agarwal, Chief Food Inspector PW 1, who proved the aforesaid documents exhibits Ka 1 to Ka 8 and detailed the aforesaid facts. 4. In his statement, Ram Autar admitted the sampling and his signatures on the receipt. He further stated that he did not sit on the shop, but his signatures were forcibly procured. Jagdish Prasad conceded that the shop belonged to him, but the curd did not belong to him and he did not sell the curd. 5. One Abdul Badood DW 1 was examined to testify that on the shop of revisionist, he had left his curd and sample was taken from it. 6. The defence was disbelieved by the courts below who upheld the prosecution version. On behalf of revisionists, first contention raised was that Jagdish Prasad was not present at the shop at the time of sampling. He did not authorise the sale of adulterated curd and so no conviction was sustainable. In this connection, it is significant to note that Sri B. K. Agarwal, PW 1 testified that the shop from which sample was seized, belonged to Jagdish Prasad, as was given out by Ram Autar himself. In his statement, Jagdish Prasad admitted that the shop belonged to him, although he denied that he used to deal in curd. DW 1 Abdul Badood conceded that the shop belonged to Jagdish Prasad, who was not present at the time of sampling. Ram Autar was there. He further concealed that the milk and curd were sold at the diary. Under these circumstances, this finding of fact that Jagdish Prasad was the owner of the shop and Ram Autar was the salesman, cannot be disturbed. It is well established that a person may be liable for a penalty by reason of his personal violation of a food law or for acts done by his agent, employee or partner. Agent and the master all are equally liable in cases of sale of adulterated food vide Sarju Prasad v. State of U. P., AIR 1961 SC 631 - 1961 AWR 200 SC. So this contention is ruled out. 7. The next contention was that the report of Director of Central Food Laboratory gives the number of sample as DM/3-5/79, Sample No. CFI/MFS/79-80. According to report of public analyst number of this sample was CFI/MF-5/79-40 vide exhibit Ka 4. So this contention is ruled out. 7. The next contention was that the report of Director of Central Food Laboratory gives the number of sample as DM/3-5/79, Sample No. CFI/MFS/79-80. According to report of public analyst number of this sample was CFI/MF-5/79-40 vide exhibit Ka 4. Sri Sardar Akhtar Judicial Magistrate, Meerut who sent the sample to Director Central Food Laboratory vide the letter dated 28-11-79 gave number of the container as JM/3-5/79. He did not certify that seal of the sample sent for comparison to the Director was intact. Under such circumstances, the revisionists were entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt vide Bhagwat v. State of U. P., 1981 ACC 279. It appears that in that case, the report of the Director made it clear that no sample seal was sent to him and he had no occasion to compare the seals on the container. Thus the mandatory provision of rule 4 sub-clause (3) of the Rules was not complied with. 8. In the instant case, the report of Director dated 25-2-80 shows that the seals were intact and the parcel seals on the outer cover of the parcel tallied with the specimen impression of the court seal given on memo Thus there is nothing wrong about the sample sent to Director which was found in a fit state of analysis. This certificate when read along with letter dated 25-2-80 sent by Director Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad to Sri Sardar Akhtar, Munsif Magistrate Meerut showed that the sample sent to him related to the same case no. 194 of 1979. It is further significant to note that such contention was never raised before learned trial Magistrate. Learned Sessions Judge rightly found that there was some typing error in the number of the figure 80 instead of 40 which was explicable had such an opportunity been afforded to the Food Inspector. Similarly, if instead of JM, DM has been noted, it will not lead to the conclusion that there was something wrong in the sample sent to Director or the sample sent to Director was not the same which was seized from the shop of Jagdish Prasad. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to go by this discrepancy. 9. The next contention was that the sample was received by Director on 5- 2-79 and he submitted his report on 25-2-80. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to go by this discrepancy. 9. The next contention was that the sample was received by Director on 5- 2-79 and he submitted his report on 25-2-80. It was beyond one month as laid down in Section 13 (2-B) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act which prescribes a period of one month only for submission of such report specifying the result of the analysis. This rule was held mandatory in Darshan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1982 Vol. 1 FAC page 290. 10. However, this view has been departed from in Tulsi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 300 which quoted with approval the test laid down in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation Bhopal, AIR 1983 SC 302 as extracted below :- "There are no ready tests or invariable formulae to determine whether a provision is mandatory or directory. The broad purpose of the statute is important. The object of the particular provision must be considered. The link between the two is most important. The weighing of the consequence of holding a provision to be mandatory or directory is vital and, more often than not determinative of the very question whether the provision is mandatory or directory Where the design of the statute is the avoidance or prevention of public mischief, but the enforcement of a particular provision literally to its letter will tend to defeat that design, the provision must be held to be directory, so that proof of prejudice in addition to non-compliance of the provision is necessary to invalidate the act complained of. It is well to remember that quite often many rules, though couched in language which appears to be imperative, are no more than mere instructions to those entrusted with the task of discharging statutory duties for public benefit. The negligence on those to whom public duties are entrusted cannot by statutory interpretation be allowed to promote public mischief and cause public inconvenience and defeat the main object of the statute. It is as well to realise that every prescription of a period within which an act must be done, it is not the prescription of a period of limitation with painful consequences if the act is not done within that period ". It is as well to realise that every prescription of a period within which an act must be done, it is not the prescription of a period of limitation with painful consequences if the act is not done within that period ". Applying the same test, in the instant case, I find that according to report of the Director, the mere fact that the result was sent after more than one month has not caused any prejudice to the parties. So that mere non- observance of the provision were not sufficient to invalidate the aforesaid report in this case In this view of the matter, I do not find any weight in these contentions. So the conviction is upheld. Sentence cannot be regarded as excessive. Revision is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 22-6-80 is hereby vacated. Let revisionists surrender to their bail bonds and taken into custody to serve out the sentences awarded to them. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Revision dismissed.