S. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision was filed against the order upholding the applicants conviction under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the lower appellate Court. ( 2 ) IN the present case on 4-4-1976 the Food Inspector had taken sample of mustard oil from the shop of the applicant. After completing all the necessary formalities as required under the law, one of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported that the sample contained 7. 9% tisi oil. Therefore, in his opinion, it was an admixture of two oils which is prohibited under Rule 44 (e ). A complaint was filed after procuring consent from C. M. O. , Azamgarh. ( 3 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of S. 13 (2) of P. F. A. Act as amended in 1976. It is further contended that the sanction order does not show any application of mind by the sanctioning authority. There is nothing on record to show that all the necessary papers were perused as required under S. 20 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (here-inafter referred to as PFA act ). ( 4 ) I have perused the record and also examined the evidence of solitary witness Ram Dev Singh P. W. 1. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that no papers exhibiting compliance of S. 13 (2) were filed by the prosecution in evidence. Therefore, it is clearly apparent that compliance of S. 13 (2) has not been proved. The learned Sessions Judge has disposed of this contention by stating that since the applicant has not made any application for sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory, no benefit will accrue to the applicant. Provisions of S. 13 (2) have been held to be mandatory by the Apex Court. Non-compliance of this section has an adverse impact upon the prosecution. The law requires that alongwith Public Analyst report, an intimation shall be sent to the accused person to enable him to apply within 10 days, from the receipt of the same, to the concerned Court, for sending his sample to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. Unless the accused is afforded such an opportunity, he is not required to do the needful. Unless the accused is afforded such an opportunity, he is not required to do the needful. If the prosecution fails to comply the provision with itself, benefit is certainly to accrue to the accused and not to the peosecution simply because the accused has not sought his sample to be sent to the Central Food Laboratory for further analysis on his appearance. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the sample contained only 7. 9% of Tisi oil. If it is a case of sale of admixed mustard oil, and tisi oil, a mixture of 8% is beyond understanding. It amounts to mixing just 79 gms. in a kilogram. If the person is inclined to sell the admixture oil, the proportion of Tisi oil is to be much higher otherwise than as found in analysis by the public analyst. When I examined the standard prescribed for mustard seeds, it allows the presence of seeds other than mustard amongst mustard seeds, to the extent of 7%. Rule A. 05. 15 of PFA Act is quoted as under:"a. 05. 15 : MUSTARD (Rai, Sarson) WHOLE means the dried seeds of Brassica alba (L) Boiss (Safed rai), Brasica compestris L. var. dichotoma (Kali Sarson), Brassica Comperstris L. var. Yellow Sarson, Syn. Brassica compestris L. var. glauca (Pili sarson), Brassica compestris L. var. toria (Toria), Brassica Juncea (L.) Coss, et Czern (Rai, Lotni) and Brassica nigra (L.) Koch (Banarsi rai ). The proportion of extraneous matter which includes dust, dirt stones, lumps of earth, chaff, stem, straw, edible food grains, edible oilseeds of any other variety or any other impurity shall not exceed 7. 0 per cent by weight. It shall be free from seeds of Argemone Mexicana Linn. " ( 5 ) THE proportion of extraneous matter which includes dust, dirt, stones, lumps of earth, chaff, straw and edible food grains, seeds etc. of any other variety shall not exceed 7% in weight. The only requirement is that there must not be seeds of Argemone Mexicana Linn. Thus, a reading of this rule with Rule 17. 06 in conjunction, we find that the only requirement is that the mustard oil should be drawn from clean and pure mustard seeds belonging to compestris jessica variety. Here also the test for Argemone oil is to be negative. Thus, a reading of this rule with Rule 17. 06 in conjunction, we find that the only requirement is that the mustard oil should be drawn from clean and pure mustard seeds belonging to compestris jessica variety. Here also the test for Argemone oil is to be negative. Not only this it must also be clear, free from rancidity, suspended or foreign matter, separated water, added colouring material or flavouring substances or mineral oil. Foreign matter in my opinion does not include seeds of other variety but they include seeds resembling mustard seeds. The intention is to keep the oil as far as possible pure free from any matter,which is not an edible seed. In rule A. 05. 15 term extraneous subtance has been used by the legislasture. In the rule at hand the term used is foreign matter. The two have defined conotations, it is apparent from their usage. Thus from a harmonious reading of two rules together presence of small amount of tisi oil in the mustard oil cannot be termed as an addition purposively by the vendor of mustard oil and sale of the same to the public at large is not called admixture. In the circumstances, presence of such a small quantity of tisi oil in the mustard oil sold by the applicant to the Food Inspector cannot be said to be sale of an adulterated oil. The adulteration has a special meaning and an article of food can be termed adulterated only when it is found that the purpose behind the sale of such an article is to earn money by dubious means. Such an admixture of two oils will not only be adulteration but also an offence of adulteration due to sale of a prohibited article which is prohibited by Rule 44 (e ). But the question that is raised before the court is whether the presence of such a small quantity of tisi oil in the mustard oil can be declared adulteration or not. Whether it is an admixture at all of two oils or is so inthe normal course of things. As earlier discussed, reading of abovesaid two rules in conjunction, the presence of amall quantity of anyother oil in the mustard oil is not only possible but also becomes permissible. In such circumstances, this transaction cannot be called the sale of adulterated mustard oil. As earlier discussed, reading of abovesaid two rules in conjunction, the presence of amall quantity of anyother oil in the mustard oil is not only possible but also becomes permissible. In such circumstances, this transaction cannot be called the sale of adulterated mustard oil. Rules are to be read in a manner which may render them effective and not ruthless. ( 6 ) THE second submission before the court is that the sanction in the present case is not in accordance with law. I have perused the sanction order. It is a typed sanction on the complaint itself. It is quoted thus, "i, Dr. K. C. Gupta, CMO, hereby sanctioned prosecution of Sri Abdul Haleem s/o Shekh Mohd. R/o Jadishpur P. S. Saraimeer u/s7/16 PFA Act and authorised Sri Ramdeo Singh, F. I. to conduct the case. " This sanction is dated 28-2-1977. None of the papers appended to the complaint bear any endorsement of the C. M. O. that he has perused them before accordingly his consent for prosecution. Therefore, the contention has some substance that the consent for the prosecution was granted in a mechanical manner. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, this revision is allowed. The applicant is acquitted. His conviction under S. 7/16 P. F. A. Act is hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are dischared. Revision allowed. .