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 R.I., and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. His conviction and sentence has been maintained in appeal by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria. Hence this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the record of the case. 3. The prosecution story is that the Food Inspector of the Mobile Food Squad went to the hotel of the applicant at about 11.30 A. M. on 9th August, 76. He purchased meat curry which according to the applicant had been prepared in mustard oil. The sample was divided in three equal parts and kept in three bottles, which were, duly sealed on the spot. One of the sample phials was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, whose report disclosed that the meat curry had been prepared in a mixture of mustard oil and linseed oil. It was, therefore, adulterated. After obtaining sanction a complaint Ex. Ka. 7 was filed on 3rd February, 1977 for the prosecution of the applicant. After the institution of the prosecution an intimation as required under section 13 of the P. F. Act, was forwarded vide letter no. Ex. Ka. 8 dated 5th February, 77. Its postal receipt is Ex. Ka. 9. On these allegations, the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted as above. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied that any sample was taken from his hotel. In support of its case, the prosecution produced Sri R. S. Verma, Food Inspector (P. W. 1.) Sri Kailash Nath Clerk of the office of Chief Medical Officer (P. W. 2), and Sri Kesheo Prasad (P. W. 3). Both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of these witnesses as also upon the documentary evidence on the record in holding the conviction of the accused. 5. The sole point, which has been strenuously argued by the applicants counsel is that Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has not been complied with. After the institution of the prosecution a copy of the result of the analysis along with a note that the applicant if he so desired, could apply for re-examination of his sample within 10 days by the Central Food Laboratory, was sent to him. After the institution of the prosecution a copy of the result of the analysis along with a note that the applicant if he so desired, could apply for re-examination of his sample within 10 days by the Central Food Laboratory, was sent to him. This contention has been dealt with by the Sessions Judge. I have minutely examined the evidence on the record in this connection. Kailash Rai (P. W. 2) clerk of the office of the C. M. O. has been produced. In this connection. He is the clerk incharge of despatch of these reports. Pie has very clearly stated that he despatched a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused applicant under registered A. D. cover. He has proved the letter Ex. Ka. 8 dated 5.2.1977. The postal receipts with respect to the despatch of this copy by registered post Ex. Ka. has also been proved by him. Sri Kailash Rai stated that the letter was actually despatched on 7th February, 1977. He has also very clearly stated that the registered letter despatched by him to the accused was not returned back to him. He has also said that he maintains a register of the registered letters. He has further stated that since the registered letter was not returned back to him, it must have been received by the accused. 6. The copy of the letter Ex. Ka. 8 clearly shows that a registered letter was addressed to the applicant Indrasan Prasad, son of Shyam Lal, Moh. Shaheb ganj, Padrauna. I have no reason to presume that even though the copy of the letter contained this address; the envelop in which the registered letter was sent was differently addressed. Even on the receipt Ex. Ka.9 which is given by the Pose office the word Indrasan and Padrauna are legible. It is common experience that in postal receipts given by the Post office full and detailed address of the addressee is not written. In receipt Ex. Ka. 2, which has been signed by Indrasan Prasad, the address given is resident of Mauza Shahebganj, Padrauna. In this receipt, the parentage of Indrasan Prasad is also mentioned as son of Shayam Lai Halwai. In receipt Ex. Ka. 2, which has been signed by Indrasan Prasad, the address given is resident of Mauza Shahebganj, Padrauna. In this receipt, the parentage of Indrasan Prasad is also mentioned as son of Shayam Lai Halwai. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the word Halwai was integral part of the address and since the profession of the father of the applicant has not been mentioned, therefore, the address should be deemed to be incorrect. This argument is not acceptable to me. The name, parentage, Mohallah, District and place of the accused-applicant have all been correctly given in Ex. Ka. 8. Merely because his fathers profession has not been given, it does not mean that the address is incorrect. It may also be mentioned here that the applicant was allowed to adduce additional evidence by the appellate court. If he had any doubts, he could have applied for summoning the register of registered letters maintained by the clerk, but that was not done There is no suggestion either in cross examination that the register maintained by the clerk concerned did not contain an entry of the registered letter alleged to have been despatched to the accused, or that the address of the applicant given in that registered letter was incorrect. In view of all these circumstances, and the convincing oral and documentary evidence on the record, I am satisfied that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with a note as required under section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act was forwarded to the applicant. For these reasons do not find any merit in this contention. 7. On the question of sentence, however, the legal position is that the minimum sentence has been awarded to the accused applicant, and no further interference is required. 8. There is thus, no merit in this revision, which is hereby dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the unexpired portion of the sentence of imprisonment.