JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. - Mahavir son of Swarup Gir 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. 1,000/- has preferred this revision. The conviction and sentence imposed on him were up-held by the appellate court. 2. The Food Inspector took a sample of the milk of the applicant on 10th August, 1979 at Shamili Road within District Muzaffarnagar. The Public Analyst reported that the sample was deficient in fat content and nonfat solids content. The applicant raised a number of pleas before the trial court which it is not necessary to set out here. Inter alia, it was contended that the mandatory provisions of section 13(2) of the Act were not complied with. None of the contentions prevailed with the trial court. 3. Sri D.N. Wali, learned counsel for the applicant has made several submissions before me but 1 think that this revision can be disposed of on one of them. He has contended that there was no compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act which are mandatory. Sub-section (2) requires that after launching of prosecution, a copy of the report of the Public Analyst should be sent to the accused and he should further be informed that he can apply to the court concerned within ten days for re-analysis of sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 4. At the out set, it may be pointed out that the present applicant had two addresses; one of village Pinna, Police Station Kotwali District Muzaffarnagar which was his temporary address at the time when the sample was taken. The permanent address was of village Bhojaheri Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffarnagar. Both these addresses were very well known to the Food Inspector as they find mention in the complaint Ext. Ka-7. The fact that one was a temporary address and the other was permanent address of the applicant was also known to the Chief Medical Officer. 5. The permanent address was of village Bhojaheri Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffarnagar. Both these addresses were very well known to the Food Inspector as they find mention in the complaint Ext. Ka-7. The fact that one was a temporary address and the other was permanent address of the applicant was also known to the Chief Medical Officer. 5. The Chief Medical Officer attempted to comply with the provisions of section 13(2) inasmuch as he sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and a notice to the applicant but the same were sent on the temporary address which was mentioned as under "Sri Mahavir son of Swarup Gir, Gram/Dakkhana Pinna Thana-Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar." This registered A.D. was received back with the following endorsement of the Postman "Is Nam Aur Pate Ka Gram Men Koe Nahin Mila, Wapis". From the above report of the Postman it is clear that the addressee was not available in the village. It was not a case of refusal by the addressee. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the Chief Medical Officer again to send the aforesaid documents to the applicant on his permanent address of village Bhojaheri Police Station Purkazi. As mentioned earlier, this address was very well known to the Food Inspector and also to the Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar, as is clear from Ext. Ka-9. These authorities were not justified in taking the view that there was due compliance with the provisions of section 13(2) by sending the documents on the address of village Pinna. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion, that there was no compliance with the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. Here a word may be said about an observation made by the lower appellate court in para 9 of its judgment on this point. While discussing the address of village and post Pinna, the lower appellate court observed that the accused had himself given this address in the statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. This is not borne out by the record. In that statement, the applicant had given his address as of village Bhojaheri. 6. It has not been disputed before me that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature. Here it may also be noted that the applicant did not make any application for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. In that statement, the applicant had given his address as of village Bhojaheri. 6. It has not been disputed before me that the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature. Here it may also be noted that the applicant did not make any application for re-analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be upheld and he deserves acquittal. 8. The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Mahavir applicant are hereby set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. The fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him.