JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The applicant has been convicted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The conviction and the sentence of the applicant have been maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, hence this revision. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from the applicant at 9 A.M. on 4-12-1977 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. His report disclosed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by 18%. After obtaining the sanction, the applicant has been prosecuted and convicted as above. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the impugned order. The main point which has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel is that there is non-compliance of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as a result of which the applicant has been seriously prejudiced. He has pointed out that an application was filed on behalf of the accused-applicant for obtaining the sample re-analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta but the same was rejected on the ground that it was delayed. He has argued that neither the copy of the report of the Public Analyst nor the intimation under section 13(2) was sent to the accused at all with the result that he could not make the requisite application within the time prescribed by law. 3. I find from a perusal of the order of the Sessions Judge that he has recorded a specific finding to the effect that no attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove the compliance of section 13(2) of the Act. He has also arrived at a finding that no intimation was given to the accused as required under section 13(2) for applying to the court for re-analysis of the sample and that the report of the Public Analyst was also not sent. The Sessions Judge appears to be of the view that a failure to comply with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act will not vitiate the proceedings. In my opinion the view taken by the court below is wholly erroneous in law. I have already held in Chattar Singh v. State of U.P., (1979 All Crl. The Sessions Judge appears to be of the view that a failure to comply with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act will not vitiate the proceedings. In my opinion the view taken by the court below is wholly erroneous in law. I have already held in Chattar Singh v. State of U.P., (1979 All Crl. Rulings 512) that section 13(2) is mandatory and a copy of the report of the Public Analyst coupled with the intimation required therein must be sent to the accused so that he may be in a position to exercise his valuable rights w within 10 days from the receipt of the report for getting the sample re-analysed. A failure to comply with these provisions of law has certainly caused prejudice to the accused because the application which he has made subsequently for re-analysis was rejected by the court below. The accused was not satisfied with the report of the Public Analyst but he could not apply within time because of non-compliance with section 13(2) of the Act. 4. In my opinion the conviction of the applicant cannot be allowed to stand for the breach of this mandatory provision which has caused prejudice to the applicant. 5. This revision application is accordingly allowed. The conviction under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence passed thereunder are set aside. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.