Order.- The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused who was charged under sections 16(1) and 7 read with section 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The Food Inspector, Vuyyur, visited the shop of the accused on 13th September, 1976 at about 6 p.m. and purchased 375 grams of ground-out oil. After complying with all the formalities and paying the cost of the ground-nut oil, he divided the sample into three equal parts and filled it in three clean and empty bottles, and sealed them with seal number 363. He sent one bottle of sample the the Chemical Analyst and the other two bottles were taken to his office. At the time of taking the sample mediator’s were present. The report of the Analyst was to the effect that the sample contained about 6 per cent. Castor oil and, therefore, it was adulterated. The accused was served with Form III notice on 6th November, 1976 and thereafter the complaint was filed against him for having committed an offence punishable under section 16(1) and section 7 read with section 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Three witnesses were examined for the Prosecution of whom P.W. 1 is the Food Inspector and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the mediators. The accused also produced one witness as D.W. 1. 3. The trial Court found that no doubt the sample was taken from the shop of the accused and one of the three sample bottles was sent to the Chemical Analyst who opined that it was adulterated, but having regard to the provisions of section 11 read with section 13 of the Amended Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to inform the accused that he had a right under section 13 of the said Act to ask the Court to send one of the remaining two sample bottles which were kept with the Food Inspector, to the Central Food Laboratory. It is not in dispute that such a notice was not sent to the accused at the time when the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him. It is not in dispute that such a notice was not sent to the accused at the time when the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him. Before the amendment of the Act, the procedure was that of the three sample bottles taken by the Food Inspector one sample bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, one sample bottle was given to the accused and the other sample bottle was kept with the Food Inspector for purposes of depositing the same in the Court. After obtaining the report of the chemical Analyst the prosecution was launched against the accused. Section 13 of the unamended Act, gave a right to the accused to file an application before the Court with a prayer to send the sample which was kept with him to the Central Food Laboratory and the Court after complying with all the formalities with regard to the condition of the sample bottle and the seal would send the same to the Central Food Laboratory and the report of the Central Food Laboratory would override the report of the State Public Analyst. 4. Under the amended Act, the Food Inspector instead of giving one sample bottle to the accused sends the remaining two sample bottles to the Local (Health) Authority and sends one to the Public Analyst. Therefore, the accused does not know as to what his rights are with regard to the bottles of sample which are sent to the Local (Health) Authority. Consequently, the Legislature thought it proper that a notice should be given to the accused at the time of sending the report of the Public Analyst informing the accused of his right to send one sample bottle which is kept with the Local (Health) Authority to the Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly, such a notice was not served upon the accused. It would be noticed that the existing law has undergone a change and a completely new law has been replaced. Therefore, what is required under the amended law has got to be followed by the prosecution because the accused does not know as to what he should do with regard to the sample bottle which has not been given to him and which is being kept with the Local (Health) Authority. Therefore, what is required under the amended law has got to be followed by the prosecution because the accused does not know as to what he should do with regard to the sample bottle which has not been given to him and which is being kept with the Local (Health) Authority. To my mind, it is necessary that at the time when the report of the Public Analyst is being sent to the accused, a notice to the effect that he has got a right to ask the Court to send one of the sample bottles retained with the Local (Health) Authority to the Central ‘Food Laboratory, has to be served upon the accused. This, to my mind, is the substance of section 11(1)©(i) and (ii) read with section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This, to my mind, is the substance of section 11(1)©(i) and (ii) read with section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 11 provides as follows: "When a Food Inspector takes a sample of food for Analysis, he shall- (a) * * * * * (b) * * * * * ©(i) send one of the parts for analysis to the Public Analyst under intimation to the Local (Health) Authority; and (ii) send the remaining two parts to the Local (Health) Authority for the purpose of sub-section (2) of this section and sub-sections (2-A) and (2-E) of section 13." Section 13(2) provides as follows: "On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory." It would thus be seen that when the law has undergone a change and the two remaining sample bottles are kept with the Local (Health) Authority then the accused should be given a notice of his right to send one of the sample bottles which is kept with the Local (Health) Authority for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. No such notice as contemplated under section 13(2) has been served upon the accused. To my mind, this is a mandatory provision and non-compliance with it has prejudiced the case of the accused. Hence, the lower Court was correct in acquitting the accused. 5. Therefore, special leave refused and the appeal is dismissed.