JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated June 29, 1981, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota. The petitioner was prosecuted in respect of an offence under Section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota. The case of the prosecution was that on January 4, 1977, Shri Lakshmichand Jain, Food Inspector, Kota had taken the sample of goat milk from the petitioner and the said milk, on chemical examination, was found to be adulterated. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, by his judgment, dated November 9, 1978, convicted the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Act and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in the event of non payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. The Sessions Judge, Kota upheld that conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Act but reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. 2. I have heard Shri K.K. Mehrish, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. 3. The first contention urged by Shri Mehrish was that there has been contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. 4. 2. I have heard Shri K.K. Mehrish, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. 3. The first contention urged by Shri Mehrish was that there has been contravention of the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. 4. Section 13(2) of the Act lays down that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis showing 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 often 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. 5. In the present case the report of the public analyst showing that the sample of the milk was adulterated bears the date`10th January, 1977'. The complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 8th, 1977. The petitioner did not appear before the Court till January 23, 1978 and on March 6, 1978, the Additional public prosecutor produced in the Court a registered post envelope containing the report of the public analyst which was addressed to the petitioner and which bears to the postal date mark "12-2-1977" as well the endorsement that the addressee was not found. 6. The submission of Shri Mehrish was that it was obligatory open the Local (Health) authority to have delivered the envelope to the petitioner and that non-delivery of the said envelope to the petitioner amounts to a breach of a mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. 6. The submission of Shri Mehrish was that it was obligatory open the Local (Health) authority to have delivered the envelope to the petitioner and that non-delivery of the said envelope to the petitioner amounts to a breach of a mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The only obligation that has been imposed by sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is that Local (Health) Authority shall forward in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons from whom the sample of article of food was taken. In the present, case the said obligation has been discharged inasmuch as the copy of the report was forwarded to the petitioner at the address given by him at the time when the sample was taken from him. The non delivery of the envelope containing the copy of the report to the petitioner on account of his having been not found at the said address does not mean that there has been a contravention of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. It may be observed that in the present case, even the various notices which were sent by the Court in the name of the petitioner for securing his presence could not be served on him, and the presence of the petitioner could only be secured through bailable warrants. In these circumstances there was no point in sending the said envelope repeatedly to the petitioner. In my view, therefore, there was not breach of the provision of Section 13(2) of the Act and the first contention urged by Shri Mehrish must be rejected. 7. The second contention urged by Shri Mehrish was that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, have not been complied with in the present case, in as much as the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was not sent separately to the public, analyst. There is no force in this contention also. From a perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector, Lakshimchand Jain, PW 1, it appears that the said witness has deposed that he had sent the specimen impression of the seal separately to the public analyst. The aforesaid statement of Laxmichand Jain, PW 1, finds corroboration from the memorandum Ex. There is no force in this contention also. From a perusal of the statement of the Food Inspector, Lakshimchand Jain, PW 1, it appears that the said witness has deposed that he had sent the specimen impression of the seal separately to the public analyst. The aforesaid statement of Laxmichand Jain, PW 1, finds corroboration from the memorandum Ex. P. 7 sent by the Food Inspector to the public analyst wherein it is stated that a copy of this memo and the specimen impression of the seal used to seal the packet was being sent separately. The report of the public analyst, Ex. P. 8, also contains a statement to the effect that the seal fixed on the container and the outer cover of the sample tallied with the specimen impression of the seal separately sent by the Food Inspector. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is no evidence on the record to show that the specimen impression of the seal was not sent separately to the public analyst and that there was breach of the provisions of Rule 18. The second contention urged by Shri Mehrish is, therefore, rejected. 8. Shri Mehrish has next contended that according to the report of the chemical analyst the sample of the milk contained 17% of water and that presence of excess quantity of water should be treated leniently. In support of his aforesaid contention Shri Mehrish has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Parasram v. The State of Rajasthan, 1979(1) FAC page 89 . I have perused the aforesaid judgment in Parasram v. The State of Rajasthan (supra). In my view the aforesaid judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case the sample of the milk was found to contain milk fat in excess of the prescribed percentage and in the said circumstances this court held that the sample could not be held to be adulterated. In the present case the minimum percentage of milk fat that has been prescribed for goat milk is 3% and in the sample of milk that was taken from the petitioner the milk fat has been found to be only 24% and the courts below have rightly held that the milk which was taken from the petitioner was adulterated. 9. In the present case the minimum percentage of milk fat that has been prescribed for goat milk is 3% and in the sample of milk that was taken from the petitioner the milk fat has been found to be only 24% and the courts below have rightly held that the milk which was taken from the petitioner was adulterated. 9. Thus, no ground is made out for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. 10. The revision-petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******