JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Hafizullah, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge Azamgarh, convicting him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to live years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo six months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to the prosecution Dharamdeo Yadav (PW 1) Food Inspector Azamgarh took a sample of Tisi-ka-tel (linseed oil) from the appellants shop on 5-1-1976 and sent it for analysis to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst found that it was adulterated inasmuch as it contained only 42% linseed oil and the rest 58% was mustard oil. 3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and he denied that any sample was taken from his shop as alleged by the prosecution. 4. The prosecution examined the Food Inspector Dharamdeo Yaday (PW 1) and Ramji Singh (PW 2) to prove that the sample of linseed oil was taken from the appellant at his shop on the aforesaid date and filed the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to show that the sample contained only 42% linseed oil and the rest was mustard oil. 5. Believing the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the prosecution had led no evidence to show that while sending the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the appellant the Local (Health) Authority had informed the appellant that if he so desired he could make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of copy of the report to get the same of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed from the Central Food Laboratory, and non-compliance with this mandatory provision in Section 13(2) vitiated the conviction. In support of his contention he relied upon a ruling of this Court in Chhattar Pal v. State of U.P., 1980 (II) FAC 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant must prevail. 8. In support of his contention he relied upon a ruling of this Court in Chhattar Pal v. State of U.P., 1980 (II) FAC 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant must prevail. 8. The Food Inspector Dharamdeo Yadav (PW 1) did say that he had sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the appellant but he did not say that while sending the copy of the report he had informed the appellant of his above-mentioned right to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Not only did the Food Inspector not say anything on this point in his oral testimony but there is also no reference to this in the covering letter, Ex. Ka. 6, with which the report of the Public Analyst was sent. It is thus clear that the appellant was not informed by the Local (Health)Authority of his right to get the sample kept with the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. As held in Chhattar Pal's case (supra), the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance there with vitiates the conviction. 9. Consequently this appeal must succeed. 10. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. If he has paid the fine the same shall be refunded.