JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The applicant was prosecuted under Sections 7/16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. According to the prosecution case, Shri Ravindra Nath Tiwari, Food Inspector, took a sample of milk at about 3 P.M. in accordance with law from the hotel of the applicant on 15-8-1978. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who reported the sample to be deficient in fat contents by about 62% and in non-fatty solids by about 39%. After obtaining report prosecution was launched against the applicant. 3. The trial court believed the evidence led by the prosecution and convicted the applicant under Sections 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. and Rs. 1000/- fine. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was preferred which has also been dismissed. 4. In the present revision learned counsel for the applicant has urged only one point. It has been argued that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act inasmuch as the report of the Public Analyst and the notice as required under the aforesaid Section were sent to the accused before the launching of the prosecution which cannot be said to be compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the report of the Public Analyst and also the requisite notice had been received by the accused. However, it is clear from the record that the aforesaid notice and the report were sent to the accused before the prosecution was launched. The question which, therefore, arises for determination is as to whether in such a circumstance the entire trial can be said to have been vitiated because of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. This precise question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganga Din v. State of U. P., 1980 (1) FAC 401 in which the argument raised was similar and it was said that the report and the notice had been sent two days before the prosecution launched. It was held that there has been sufficient compliance of law. It was held that there has been sufficient compliance of law. The intention of the legislature while enacting a provision like the provision of Section 13(2) in the Act was that the accused persons may get an opportunity to know about the report of the Public Analyst which would be the most important evidence against the accused persons for proving the charge levelled against them and in case the accused persons doubted the report of the Public Analyst he should be given an opportunity to get the sample examined by Central Food Laboratory. The aforesaid opportunity in the present case had been provided to the accused as he was duly supplied with the report of the Public Analyst and he could, if he so liked, get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. There has been no prejudice caused to the accused and thus the trial cannot be held to be vitiated on account of the fact that the report of the Public Analyst had been given prior to the launching of the prosecution. In my opinion the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge on this question does not require any interference in this revision. 6. No other point has been pressed before me. 7. For the reasons stated above, the present revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.