Judgment ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the judgement dt. 6-7-87 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dt. 6-12-85 has been confirmed by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food ,adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA Act in short) and sentenced to undergo one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to undergo 6 months S. I. ( 2 ) SHRI Ramswaroop Sahgal, Food Inspector, District Ganganagar took a sample of turmeric from the shop of the petitioner according to the provisions of PFA Act and sent it for chemical examination which was found adulterated. A complaint was filed on 9-2-84 by Shri Ramswaroop and the Court took the cognizance and summoned the petitioner. The petitioner was tried for the charge under Section 7/16 of the PFA Act. He denied the charge and after trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel on behalf the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Ramswaroop Sahgal vas not competent as Food Inspector to lodge the complaint on 9-2-84 in the Court because he was appointed Food Inspector only for one year for the local areas of Shriganganagar District by notification Ex. P-2 i. e. up to 17-1-84. Therefore he was not authorised to submit the compliant on 9-2-84. It is further argued that the Court could not take cognizance on a complaint filed by unauthorised person and therefore the trial is vitiated and the petitioner should be acquitted on this ground alone. It is next argued that the case was conducted by Assistant Public Prosecutor who was also not authorised for this. Therefore the whole proceedings conducted by the Court was absolutely without jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor has repelled this argument that the sample was collected on 22-10-83 and on that day Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was duly appointed Food Inspector and was fully competent to take the sample and also to file the complaint as he was duly authorised by the Local Health Authority, Shriganganagar by Ex. P-15. Learned Public Prosecutor has repelled this argument that the sample was collected on 22-10-83 and on that day Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was duly appointed Food Inspector and was fully competent to take the sample and also to file the complaint as he was duly authorised by the Local Health Authority, Shriganganagar by Ex. P-15. The learned trial Court has considered this contention and has observed that Food Inspector Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was authorised to take sample and sample was found adulterated, the complaint was lodged by him on 9-2-84. It does not in any manner prejudice the case of the petitioner. Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was authorised to file the complaint and therefore he was competent to file it in the Court. ( 4 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that when the sample was taken on 22-10-83 Shri Ramswaroop Sahgal was working as duly appointed Food Inspector for District Shriganganagar by notification Ex. P-2. When the sample was taken by him found adulterated on chemical analysis he submitted the complaint duly authorised by District Local Health Authority, Shriganganagar and therefore taking cognizance on such complaint and to hold trial against the petitioner was not without jurisdiction. The complainant Ramswaroop Sahgal submitted an application on 9-2-84 that his attendance may be exempted for the reasons mentioned in the application and the Assistant Public Prosecutor may be allowed to conduct the case. The Court accepted the application and gave permission to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to conduct the case. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the case was conducted by duly authorised Asstt. Public Prosecutor. Therefore, on this count also the trial is not vitiated. There does not appear any illegality, committed in holding the trial against the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is argued that the report was received on 5-12-83 and a copy of the report was sent to the petitioner on 13-2-84 which is a violation of Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which is a mandatory provision and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted on this ground also. I am unable to accept this contention. I am unable to accept this contention. In AIR 1985 SC 299 : (1984 Cri LJ 1731) (Tulsiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh), Honble the Apex Court has clearly laid down that the expression "immediately" in Rule 9-A has been used to convey a sense of continuity rather than urgency. The report of the chemical analysis must be forwarded to the person from whom the sample was taken at the earliest opportunity so that ho may exercise his statutory right under Section 13 (2) in time before the prosecution leads the evidence. ( 6 ) THE report of the chemical analysis should be sent at the earliest opportunity in order to avoid any chance of the decomposition of the sample due to the delay and by the time the sample is sent to the Central Food Laboratory for chemical examination on the application of the accused under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act. If delay is caused in sending the report of chemical analysis to the person from whom the sample was taken then it may prejudice his defence and in that case the delay would defeat the prosecution. Therefore non-compliance of Rule 9-A is not fatal. The idea is to send the report to the accused at the earliest time so that he may properly defend himself and to avail the opportunity in the very beginning of the case to apply to the Court under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act to send the sample to Central Food Laboratory, for analysis. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Noparam, reported in 1980 Raj CC 241 also the old Rule 9 (J) was considered from this angle and. it was laid down that the provision was mandatory in the sense that it is obligatory on the Food Inspector to send a copy of the report of the public analyst to the accused and a lapse on his part would result in depriving the accused a valuable right to get the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory. In that case the purpose of the rule would be frustrated but the other requirements of the rule are directory. Therefore if the report has not been sent immediately then the petitioner does not get any benefit unless it is shown that his defence has been prejudiced during the trial. In that case the purpose of the rule would be frustrated but the other requirements of the rule are directory. Therefore if the report has not been sent immediately then the petitioner does not get any benefit unless it is shown that his defence has been prejudiced during the trial. In view of the above discussion, the contention about delay, in sending a copy of the report to the accused had no force. In this case the petitioner has properly exercised his right under Section 13 (2) of the PFA Act and has got the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, according to that report also the sample has been found adulterated. The sample showed admixture with wheat and rice flour as seen from the microscopic examination. I do not see any good reason to disturb the concurrent finding of the two Courts below. The offence under Section 7/16 of PFA Act has been proved by the prosecution against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then argued about the quantum of sentence. It is urged that the petitioner has remained in jail for about 10 days. The sample was taken in the year 1983. The Court has powers, even in the cases of minimum sentence to reduce the punishment to already undergone. He has relied upon AIR 1980 SC : 126 : (1980 Cri LJ 111) (Ramdas Bhikhaji Chaudhari v. Sadanand. In the above case there was an appeal against the acquittal and the appeal was allowed on 3-10-79. The accused was prosecuted in 1971 and acquitted by the High Court in 1978 and the acquittal was set aside by Supreme Court and it was observed that ends of justice did not require that the accused be sent back to jail. Therefore the accused was sentenced to fine of, Rs. 2,000/- and in default to 6 months R. I. In Braham Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1789 , the sample was taken on 9-7-80, the appeal was decided by the Supreme Court on 2-8-88. Keeping in view that the occurrence took place eight years back and the accused had already suffered part of the imprisonment, his sentence of 6 months R. I. was reduced to already undergone. In the case in hand, the sample was taken from the petitioner in the year 1983 about 13 years back. Keeping in view that the occurrence took place eight years back and the accused had already suffered part of the imprisonment, his sentence of 6 months R. I. was reduced to already undergone. In the case in hand, the sample was taken from the petitioner in the year 1983 about 13 years back. He has also suffered part of the sentence of imprisonment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice shall meet if the fine imposed on the petitioner in default 6 months S. I. is maintained. The sentence of imprisonment of one year is reduced to already undergone. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner Deshraj under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 by the impugned judgements is hereby upheld. The sentence of imprisonment of one year R. I. is reduced to already undergone. However the sentence of fine Rs. 2,000/- or in default 6 months S. I. is maintained. The petitioner has already deposited the fine as shown in the warrant of commitment to jail prepared by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. His bail bonds are Cancelled. Petition partly allowed.