JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. According to the prosecution the applicant was found selling milk on 19-11-1976 at about 7.30 A.M. when B.K. Arora Food inspector took sample of the milk. The sample was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst reported the milk to be deficient by 25 per cent in fat contents and 13 per cent in non-fatty solids. Sanction was duly obtained from the Chief Medical Officer and prosecution was launched against the applicant. 3. Before the trial court the Food Inspector was examined as P.W.1 by the prosecution and the trial court on the basis of the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence found the applicant to be guilty of the offence under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. 4. In the present revision the counsel for the applicant has urged that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as the information that the applicant if so desired can make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of the 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 was not sent to the applicant. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court reported in Chhattar Pal v. State of U.P., 1980 (1) FAC 409. The aforesaid point was also raised before the two courts below but the courts below negatived the contention of the applicant on the ground that no foundation was laid by the applicant for raising such an argument. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant had filed the copy of the report of the Public Analyst sent by the Department and that copy itself indicates that nothing else was sent to the applicant. I have myself perused the original copy which was sent to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant had filed the copy of the report of the Public Analyst sent by the Department and that copy itself indicates that nothing else was sent to the applicant. I have myself perused the original copy which was sent to the applicant. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst itself has been made the envelope and that the address of the applicant has been written and the postal stamps have also been affixed on the back of the aforesaid report. From the aforesaid it is clear that there was no other document accompanying the report of the Public Analyst sent to the applicant. I have also gone through the statement of the Food Inspector and find that the Food Inspector had nowhere stated that along with the report of the Public Analyst an intimation was sent to the applicant as required by section 13(2) of the Act. It has been laid down in the case of Chhatar Pal (supra) that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act about sending the information to the applicant within a period of 10 days from the date of the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst is mandatory. A failure to comply with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act results in miscarriage of justice, specially when no application has been made by the accused for the exercise of his right. In the present case also the accused could not make the application as the information as required by section 13(2) of the Act was not sent to him. There was thus a grave miscarriage of justice. 5. For the reasons stated above, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the applicant for the offence under section 7/16 of the Act and the sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed thereunder are set aside. The accused is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.