T. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision by Achhairbar Prasad son of Ganesh resident of Mohalla Nai Bazar Basti Police Station Kotwali, District Basti is directed against the judgment and order passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1983, dated 22-3-83, arising out of Criminal Case No. 4080 (7), under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act), thereby confirming the applicants conviction and sentence of six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 or in default of payment of fine, further to undergo R. I. for two months. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows :- On 25-10-1975 at about 5 P. M. Rudra Prasad Srivastava, P. W. 1, Food Inspector, Mobile Squad, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, inspected the shop of the applicant in Naya Bazar, Basti. After disclosing his identity, he purchased 300 gms. of Heeng from the applicant on payment of Rs. 21. 00 as its price. He suspected the Heeng to be adulterated so he purchased the aforesaid quantity of Heeng for analysis. The notice Ext. Ka 1 was served upon the applicant stating therein that the sample was being purchased for analysis. Receipt Ext. Ka. 2 was also obtained from the applicant in token of payment of Rs. 21. 00 having been paid as the price of Heeng so purchased. The Heeng was devided into three equal parts and put in three separate clean bottles, which were duly sealed. One of the sealed bottles was given to the applicant vide memo Ext. Ka. 3. The other sample bottle along with copy of the memorandum Ext. Ka 4 was sent to the public Analyst, through registered post. As per report of the Public Analyst dated 10-12-1975, Ext. Ka 6, the sample was found to be adulterated as it contained 30. 24% starch, which exceeded the maximum permissible limit of 1%. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with letter dated 30-12-75, Ext. Ka. 5, was also sent to the applicant through registered post. The Food Inspector prepared the complaint and submitted the papers for sanction to the Local Health Authority. After obtaining the sanction, Ext. Ka. 8 for prosecution of the applicant, a complaint was filed in the Court. The applicant was tried under Section 7/16 of the Act. Ka. 5, was also sent to the applicant through registered post. The Food Inspector prepared the complaint and submitted the papers for sanction to the Local Health Authority. After obtaining the sanction, Ext. Ka. 8 for prosecution of the applicant, a complaint was filed in the Court. The applicant was tried under Section 7/16 of the Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. He also denied the allegations including the purchase of the sample of Heeng from him. It was pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case due to misunderstanding. No evidence in defence was examined. ( 3 ) IN support of his case, the complainant besides himself coming in the witness box as P. W. 1, examined Markandey P. W. 2. ( 4 ) THE Judicial Magistrate, Basti, after considering the evidence on record, and hearing the parties, held the accused-applicant guilty of selling adulterated Heeng and convicted and awarded the aforesaid sentence, against which he filed an appeal, which was heard by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, who vide his judgment and order dated 12-3-83 found the same to be without any merit and dismissed the same, maintaining both the conviction and sentence of the applicant. Hence this revision. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and I have perused the record. It was at the outset argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that Heeng is composed of one or more varieties viz. Irani Heeng or Pathani Heeng or both and since there was no such specification of the Heeng in the instant case, as such conviction of the accused-applicant was bad in law. ( 6 ) AFTER giving my careful consideration to the said submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, I find myself unable to agree with the same. As stated above, the accused-applicant has denied the allegation altogether. He has even denied the Food Inspector having purchased the sample of Heeng from him. He has rather pleaded that he is being prosecuted on account of some misunderstanding. He has not explained nor any evidence has been brought on record on his behalf as to what was the misunderstanding on account of which he was being prosecuted. Be that as it may, the accused has nowhere explained as to which variety of Heeng was with him from out of which the sample of 300 Gms. He has not explained nor any evidence has been brought on record on his behalf as to what was the misunderstanding on account of which he was being prosecuted. Be that as it may, the accused has nowhere explained as to which variety of Heeng was with him from out of which the sample of 300 Gms. of Heeng was sold to the Food Inspector. Rule A. 04 of the Rules framed under the Act gives two varieties of Asafoetida which are called Hing or Hingra. In both the varieties the standard of Starch given is "starch shall not exceed 1 per cent by weight". Thus, in the instant case, even if thehingwas any of the two varieties, the starch shall not exceed 1% by weight. But in the instant case, as per the report of the Public Analyst, Ext. Ka. 6, the sample contained 30. 24% of starch, which was certainly much more than the permissible limit of 1%. In this view of the matter, it makes no difference as to which particular variety of sample of Hingwas sold by the applicant-accused to the Food Inspector. It was for the applicant to have explained the variety of which thehing sold by him was. In the absence of any such explanation on the part of the applicant, the plea raised on his behalf does not hold good and can safely be ignored. ( 7 ) IT was further argued that the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules have not been complied with, so the accused-applicant should not be held guilty. Here, again the plea of the learned counsel for the applicant is not maintainable, for the reasons stated in the authority of Supreme Court in Prabhu v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (2) EFR 145 : (1994 AIR SCW 2649), wherein it has been held that the provisions of Rule 9-A of the Rules are directory and if after receiving the report of the Public Analyst, the accused does not apply to the Court to have the sample sent to the Central Food Laboratory, he may not be heard to complain about the delay in receipt of the report by him unless, of course, he is able to establish some other prejudice. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, it has come in the evidence on record that the report of the Public Analyst being number 31975 dt. 10-12-75 was sent to the accused-applicant through the registered post vide memo dated 30-12-1975 Ext. Ka. 5. The Food Inspector in his evidence as P. W. I has made a statement to that effect on oath. It is not the case of the applicant that he did not receive the said report through the registered post. In the circumstances, the report must have been received by the accused-applicant in due course of time and it was for him to take appropriate steps to get the sample analysed at Central Food Laboratory, if he was so desired. The Food Inspector duly complied with the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. No prejudice has either been caused to the accused nor has been shown on his behalf, that may go to create any doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. It cannot be, therefore, held that the accused-applicant suffered any prejudice on account of any such act of prosecution in either not sending the report or he has not received the said report well within time. ( 9 ) NO other point has been urged. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing, there being no merit in the present revision, and same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant recorded by the Courts below are maintained. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, and he be taken into the custody forthwith to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. For this purpose, let the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti take appropriate steps by issuing non-bailable warrants to secure presence of the accused. Petition dismissed. .