JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - Vijai Pal who has been convicted for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (briefly the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, has filed this revision. 2. A sample of milk which the applicant represented to be she buffalo milk, was taken by Food Inspector R. A. Hanif on 5th December, 1977 at 8 P.M. after observing the rules. The Public Analyst found that the sample contained fat 5.3% and non-fatty-solid 8.3% and thus, it was deficient in fat content by 12% and in non-fat content by 8%. The applicant was prosecuted. The defence of the applicant was that the milk was of cow. The Magistrate found that prosecution case proved and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the applicant. An appeal to the Sessions Judge, Meerut was also unsuccessful. Hence this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant had represented that the milk was of cow. The finding of the courts below that the sample milk was represented to be she-buffalo milk was erroneous. In this way the learned counsel seeks to challenge the finding of fact. No perversity in the finding has been pointed out. The finding is based on good evidence, hence this contention of the learned counsel is repelled. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. In this connection he has made two submissions; first that there was no proof that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant after launching the prosecution. Second, that no information as required under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act was given to the applicant along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst, to the effect that he could apply to the court concerned within ten days from the receipt of the copy for getting the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that non-compliance with either of these mandatory requirements of law was fatal and vitiated the proceedings. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decision Chhatter pal v. State of U.P. 1980 (1) FAC 409. 6. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that non-compliance with either of these mandatory requirements of law was fatal and vitiated the proceedings. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on the decision Chhatter pal v. State of U.P. 1980 (1) FAC 409. 6. So far as the first limb of the aforesaid arguments is concerned, 1 find that Mahendra Kumar P.W. 2 clearly said that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant from the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut under registered A.D. No cross-examination was directed on this statement. It is true that the A.D. or the registered postal receipt was not produced but their non-production is not to be taken as non-proof of this particular fact because the statement of P.W. 2 was not at all challenged on this point. 7. I find considerable force in the second limb of the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. P.W. 2 nowhere stated that along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst information as required under subsection (2) was also sent to the applicant intimating him that he could apply to the court concerned within ten days for getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In Chhattar Pal's case it was held that non-compliance with this mandatory provision had caused grave miscarriage of justice particularly in the instant case, wherein no application had been made by the accused for the exercise of his right. I respectfully agree with this view of the learned Single Judge. 8. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be sustained and he deserved acquittal. 9. The revision application is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant Vijai Pal are hereby set aside and he is acquitted. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby dischargred. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him.