ORDER N.P. Singh, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1993 whereby he dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence of the applicant. 2. On 29.10.1987, the complainant R.P. Soni, Food Inspector found the applicant selling adulterated 20-25 litres of cow milk contained in four cans. He purchased 660 ml of milk for the public analyst on payment of Rs. 2.60/- after giving notice, and prepared three milk samples after thoroughly shaking the milk, observing necessary formalities and sent one milk sample to the public analyst for chemical examination and report and the rest two samples to the local health authority. The public analyst; vide his report (Ex.P-7) opined that the milk sample was adulterated and not conformed to the prescribed standard of rules. 3. On a prosecution report, submitted by the complainant Food Inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the trial of the applicant commenced. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence convicted the applicant under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- 4. On appeal, the conviction and sentence of the applicant was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. 5. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that the sample of milk was taken on 29.10.87 but the sample was sent to the public analyst after five days in utter violation of the provisions of law as contained in Section 11(3) of the Act. The Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment also held that the sample was sent after five days from the date of purchase. He further contended that there was also non compliance of Rule 18 with regard to the sending copy of memorandum and specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet, in a separate sealed packet, to the public analyst. The provisions of law as contained in Section 11(3) and rule 18 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof has caused serious prejudice to the applicant, therefore, the whole trial of the applicant vitiated. 6. The provisions of law as contained in Section 11(3) and rule 18 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof has caused serious prejudice to the applicant, therefore, the whole trial of the applicant vitiated. 6. As regards the non-compliance of Section 11(3) of the Act it is settled that Section 13 (3) of the Act is directory and not mandatory in nature. The delay of few days in sending the sample to the public analyst does not per-se cause prejudice to the offender. To construe any and every delay as fatal to the prosecution, would be to encourage mal practice and corruption and to frustrate the design of the statute. Therefore, every violation of the time limit cannot be fatal to the prosecution, unless prejudice is shown. 7. In the instant case the accused has not been able to show that in what manner the prejudice was caused to him in not sending the sample immediately after taking the same. 8. However, the compliance of Rule 18 is mandatory in nature. The infraction thereof vitiates the trial. 9. In the instant case, there is nothing that copy of memorandum and the facsimile of the seal was sent separately to the public analyst. A mere recital in the report of the public analyst that he had tallied the seals on the container of the sample with his specimen impression of the seals separately sent by the Food Inspector will not establish that such a speciman impression of the seal had infact been sent to the public analyst. 10. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside and in the result the revision application is allowed. Application allowed