JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---A case under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was instituted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad, Alibag, being Regular Criminal Case No. 137 of 1982. The food article involved was milk. The Ld. trial Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and, after holding the accused guilty, sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 1 and ½ months. This order dated 5th April, 1983 passed by the Ld. trial Judge was challenged by way of appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1983. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1983 came to be decided on 18th March, 1985 by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad. He allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused/appellant before him. It is this order of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, is sought to be challenged by way of the present appeal. 3. We have gone through the judgment of the Ld. Appellate Judge and, in paragraph 14 thereof, we find discussions with regard to the collection of sample of the milk, and more particularly in paragraph 15 at page 71 of the paper book, there is a reference to the Panch witness - P.W. 2 Shri Palkar from whose evidence it was found out that the samples of the milk collected from three different places were collected in one common vessel which was neither clean nor dry and from that as many as 9 bottles were packed. This would certainly be an infirmly. 4. As if this is not enough, there is fatal breach of mandatory Rule 9(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 as noted by the Ld. Appellate Judge in paragraph 16 of the judgment itself. The relevant portion is at page 75 of the paper book. The case was filed in the Court on 16th February, 1982 and the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused on 23rd February, 1982. There is, therefore, delay of 7 days. This has been held to be violation of Rule 9(a) and for that purpose, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of (Sebastian v. The State)1, reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. page 1359 has been relied on by the Ld. Appellate Judge. 5. There is, therefore, delay of 7 days. This has been held to be violation of Rule 9(a) and for that purpose, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of (Sebastian v. The State)1, reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. page 1359 has been relied on by the Ld. Appellate Judge. 5. Setting aside the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court being thus on legal and valid ground, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. Appellate Judge. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----