JUDGMENT P.N. Harkauli, J. - Shyam Lal, appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, convicting him under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a tine of Rs. 2000/-. in default of payment of line the appellant was ordered to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment. 2. According to the prosecution, the Food Inspector took a sample of linseed oil from the shopof the appellant which, upon examination by the Public Analyst was found to be adulterated inasmuch as it contained only 47% linseed oil and the rest was mustard oil and also because it contained til oil more than the tolerance limit of 5.0 red units. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the legality of conviction of the appellant on a technical ground, namely, that in view of Section 13(2) of the Act it was obligatory on the Local (Health) authority not only to send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the appellant but also to inform him of his right, if he so desired, to make an application to the court within ten days from the date of the receipt of 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. The learned counsel argued that failure to comply with this mandatory provision of law vitiated the conviction. 4. The argument is obviously sound. Ex. Ka. 7 is the letter sent by the Food Inspector to the appellant and it shows that all that the Food Inspector did was to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the appellant with this letter and he did not inform the appellant of his right to get the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. Admittedly Section 13(2) of the Act came into force with effect from 1-4-1976 and Ex. Ka. 7 was sent on 2-4-1976 that is, after coming into force of the aforesaid provision, it has been held by this Court in Kesar Singh v. State of U.P. 1980 (I) FAC 318 that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act in this regard are mandatory and non-compliance therewith vitiates the conviction. 5. Ka. 7 was sent on 2-4-1976 that is, after coming into force of the aforesaid provision, it has been held by this Court in Kesar Singh v. State of U.P. 1980 (I) FAC 318 that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act in this regard are mandatory and non-compliance therewith vitiates the conviction. 5. It is thus clear that the conviction of the appellant is vitiated and this appeal must succeed. 6. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. If he has paid the line, it shall be refunded to him.