Judgment : 1. This appeal is by the State. The two accused A-1 and A-2 who are father and son were charged under Sec.2(la)(a)(j)(m), 7(1) read with 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The trial court acquitted A-1, but convicted A-2 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. Against that conviction and sentence, A-2 filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The appellate court found the appe¡lant/2nd accused also not guilty and therefore it acquitted him. It is against this order of acquittal, the State has come up with this appeal. 2. The case against the second accused is that A-1 being the owner of the grocery shop at 70, Periya Kadai Theru, Ammapet and A-2 being his son as well as salesman of the said grocery shop, on 25.10.1984, at about 9.15 a.m. sold 7 Kg. of Besan (Kadalai Mavoo) to the Food Inspector, Ammapet Panchayat Union which when subjected to analysis by the Food Analyst, Guindy, Madras found adulterated and contained 90% of Bengal Gram flour and the sample was also found to contain Metanil yellow a coal tar colour, which is not permitted to be used in any food. Both the accused denied the charge, and as stated above the trial court itself acquitted A-1, and convicted only A-2 and on appeal, the appellate court acquitted A-2 also. 3. The only ground on which A-2 has been acquitted by the appellate court is that, the report of the Food Analyst, Guindy did not contain the date of analysis. I am unable to agree with this ground stated by the learned appellate Judge. As per Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: ‘A Public Analyst shall, within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis deliver to the local health authority, a report of the result of such analysis in Form No.III’. Neither Sec.13 which requires the Public Analyst to submit the report to the local authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis nor Rule 7 which prescribes the duties of the Public Analyst requires that he must mention the date of the analysis. Neither Sec.13 which requires the Public Analyst to submit the report to the local authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis nor Rule 7 which prescribes the duties of the Public Analyst requires that he must mention the date of the analysis. As seen above, as per clause 7(3), the public analyst shall send the report within 40 days from the date of receipt of the sample for analysis. In the present case, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 Food Inspector, the sample was taken on 25.10.1984 and the Public Analyst report is dated 24.11.1984 and it was received by the local health authority on 29.11.1984. This would show that the analysis should have been done within one month. It is nowhere prescribed as to within how many days, the analysis should be done. Therefore, the mere non-mentioning of the date of analysis does not in any way affect the credibility of the report. Therefore, the learned appellate court Judge was in error in acquitting the accused on the said ground. I find no other ground on which A-2 is entitled for an acquittal. Hence, the order of acquittal is set aside. 4. Now, as regards the sentence, the alleged offence is dated 25.10.1984 and A-2 was acquitted by the appellate court in the year 1986 and now more than 6 years has elapsed. Considering this as a special ground, A-2 is sentenced to undergo three months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.50() and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, A-2 is entitled to remission of the substantive sentence under G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 20.2.1990. Therefore, he need not surrender to custody to serve the substantive sentence. I grant two weeks time for payment of fine from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court.