JUDGMENT D.P. Sood, J.—Accused Suresh Kumar was tried but acquitted for the commission of the offence under section 16 (1) (II) read with section 7 (1) and (5) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide the impugned judgment passed on March 30, 1993, in Criminal Case No. 15-III of 1991. 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that on November 13, 1990, Shri S.C Sharma, Food Inspector, after disclosing his identity to the accused purchased a sample of cow milk (750 mis) in consideration of payment of Rs. 3.75 with an intention to get it anaysed. Notice to this effect (Ex. PW I/A) was served upon the accused. After observing the codal formalities with respect to the taking of sample, dividing it into three bottles by affixing the sales on each one of them in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act, sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, Punjab at Chandigarh for analysis One of the seal impression was also sent alongwith it. The two other parts of the sample were handed over by the complainant to the Local Health Authority (hereinafter shortly as LHA) for its safe custody. Report of the Public Analyst Ex. PW 1/J found the sample of milk to be an adulterated one. Accordingly, PW 1 filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of the aforesaid offences and sent the intimation of filing thereof to the LHA. 3. On prima facie case being made out, notice of accusation was given to the accused with respect to the commission of the aforesaid offences, who abjured the guilt and claimed false implication. The trial Court, on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, recorded the order of acquittal on two grounds : (i) that sanction Ex. PW 1/N was a mechanical sanction without application of mind of the sanctioning authority ; and (ii) that Rule 7 (3) of the Rules framed being mandatory had been violated which vitiated the trial. The only question before this Court is whether the impugned judgment is legally sustainable ? 4. A close perusal of the entire evidence, emerging from the record of this case reveals, that the impugned judgment merits its confirmation even without going into the question of sanction. Rule 7 (3) of the 1955 Rules pertaining to the duties of the Public Analyst. 4. A close perusal of the entire evidence, emerging from the record of this case reveals, that the impugned judgment merits its confirmation even without going into the question of sanction. Rule 7 (3) of the 1955 Rules pertaining to the duties of the Public Analyst. It lays down that : (1) That on receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis, from a Food Inspector or any other person, the Public Analyst or an officer authorised by him, shall compare the seals on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the condition of the seals thereon. (2).............. (3) The Public Analyst shall, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of any sample for analysis, (send by registered post or by hand) to the LHA, a report of the result of such analysis in Form III : Provided that where any such sample does not conform to the provisions of the Act or these Rules, the Public Analyst shall (send by registered post or by hand) four copies of such report to the said Authority : Provided further that the public analyst shall forward a copy of such report also to the person who purchased an article of food and forwarded the same to him for analysis under section 12 of the Act : The duration of the period of 45 days has been substituted by Notification No. GSR-500 (E) dated July 19, 1984 and the requirement of sending the report of the result of such analysis in Form III to the LHA has also been introduced with effect from 24-9-1987. 5. The perusal of the above said provisions clearly indicate the purpose underlying the amendments so effected. In fact, consumable articles like milk is a perishable commodity. The accused has a vested right to get another part of the sample analysed from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory also. In case the Public Analyst does not perform his duty within the statutory period, and allows the sample to be damaged or destroyed in one way or the other, without sending the result of the Public Analyst within the statutory period, it does tend to prejudice the defence of the accused. In fact this rule is mandatory in nature and violation thereof, vitiates the trial. In fact this rule is mandatory in nature and violation thereof, vitiates the trial. I am fortified in taking this view by the decision in Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, reported in 1984 FAC 136 and Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and another v. State of Assam, 19 3 FAJ 49 (DB). 6. In the instant case, record shows that sample of the milk was taken by the PW 1 on 13-11-1990. It was received in the office of Public Analyst, Chandigarh on 19-11-1990. The Public Analyst signed his report Ex PW 1/J on 17-12-1990. The LHA sent the report of the Public Analyst Ex. PW1/J to the complainant vide their letter Ex. PW 1/K dated 30th of March, 1991, who in turn sent the same to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kangra vide his letter (Ex. PW 1/M) dated 12-4-1991 for obtaining his written consent and the latter accorded sanction on 22-4-1991. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that Public Analyst report was received in the office of LHA within 45 days from the date when the sample was received in his office for analysis 7. The consequence of the aforesaid data shows that had the report been received within 45 days, it would have also been forwarded to the complainant or the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra immediately thereafter. In view of the existence of such circumstances, the trial Court cannot be said to have wrongly appreciated the evidence in holding that violation of Rule 7 (3) of 1955 Rules has been committed by the concerned agencies. As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment nor any interference is called for. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.