JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - The applicant Jagpal Singh was convicted for an offence under sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 10C0/- by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Kanpur. An appeal preferred by the applicant was unsuccessful hence this revision. 2. A sample of mixed milk of cow and she buffalo was taken. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in non-fatty solids by thirteen per cent. 3. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 29-3-1978. The complaint was filed in the court of the Magistrate on 22-5-1978. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 30-5-1978 and issued notice to the applicant that very day. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no compliance with the mandatory provision contained in subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) inasmuch as the applicant had no opportunity to apply to the Magistrate to send one phial of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for analyst. In view of the aforesaid sub-section, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should have been supplied to the applicant after filing the complaint in the court of the Magistrate, and then the applicant would have had a right to apply to the court within ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the milk analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Since the complaint was filed about two months after the supply of the copy, the applicant had no opportunity to move the application in terms of the aforesaid sub-section. Thus a precious right was lost to the applicant. He has also submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act are mandatory. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of P.N. Bakshi, J. dated 13-1-1981 in criminal revision No. 544 of 1980, Jai Narain Singh v. The State, reported in 1981 (I) FAC 105. 5. The facts in the case of Jai Narain Singh were very much similar. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of P.N. Bakshi, J. dated 13-1-1981 in criminal revision No. 544 of 1980, Jai Narain Singh v. The State, reported in 1981 (I) FAC 105. 5. The facts in the case of Jai Narain Singh were very much similar. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused of the case on 30-3-1978, while the complaint was actually filed on 22-5-1978. In that case Honble Bakshi, J. observed as follows : "It is noteworthy that in the instant case no prosecution had been instituted against the applicant, as such it was not possible for the applicant to file any such application for re-examination of the sample. Thus by sending the report of the Public Analyst to the applicant 7 weeks prior to the institution of the prosecution case, the right given to the accused under section 13(2) of the Act has been rendered nugatory. It is not possible for the accused to make any application for analysis within stipulated time since the prosecution had not been launched. Section 13(2) of the Act is a mandatory section. Its non-compliance has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the deficiency is only in non-fatty contents to the extent of 13 per cent. The right of the applicant had been lost to get the analysis confirmed by superior authority. He has thus been severely prejudiced." I am in respectful agreement with the above view of Honble Bakshi, J. This view is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. In this view of the matter, the conviction and the sentence of the applicant cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. 6. In the result, the revision is allowed; the conviction of the applicant Jagpal Singh for an offence under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon him for this offence are hereby set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded.