Judgment.- The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, acquitting the respondents-accused who were charged for offences under sections 16 (1) (a) (i) read with sections 7 (i) and 2 (1-A) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. On 29th June, 1967, P.W.1, Food Inspector of Karamadai Panchayat Union purchased about 4-10 p.m. (wrongly stated as 4-10 a.m. in the judgment) 750 grams of broken rice from A-2 who was doing business and divided the rice into three equal parts and sealed them in three packets, labeled them and sent one such packet to the Public Analyst and the remaining two to the Local (Health) Authority. The report of the Analyst, Ex.P-8, showed that the sample contained damaged grains in excess, to an extent of 64 per cent. The Food Inspector later laid the complaint against A-1, the owner and A-2 from whom he has purchased the broken rice. 3. The defence was that the sample was sold as ‘poultry feed’ and was not intended for human consumption. The trial Magistrate found that notice under section 13 (2) of the Act was served by the Food Inspector and not by the Local (Health) Authority as contemplated under section 13 (2) and that the notice was not served on A-2 from whom the sample was taken, but on A-1 who was the owner of the shop. 4. The second contention that notice under, section 13 (2) was served only on A.1 is not factually correct as I find from the records that it was served on A-2 also. Obviously the Magistrate has overlooked the thumb impression of A-2 in Exhibit B-9. The evidence of Food Inspector also shows that it was served on A-2. 5. As regards the first objection that the notice under section 13 (2) was issued by the Food Inspector and not by the Local (Health) Authority, I must point out that there is in evidence of P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, that he served the notice on the direction of the Local (Health) Authority. 5. As regards the first objection that the notice under section 13 (2) was issued by the Food Inspector and not by the Local (Health) Authority, I must point out that there is in evidence of P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, that he served the notice on the direction of the Local (Health) Authority. This statement of P.W. 1 has not been challenged in cross-examination and it should also be noted that one of the duties of the Food Inspector enumerated under rule 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, is that he should “perform such other duties as may be entrusted to him by the health officer having jurisdiction in the local area concerned or the Food (Health) Authority”. (See rule 9 (i)) Therefore, it is clear that the grounds on which the order of acquittal was pronounced are wrong. 6. Rut the learned Counsel for the respondents wants to sustain the order of acquittal on another ground and that is, the mandatory provisions of section 13 (2) have not been followed. He would say that the report of the analyst was served earlier to the filing of the complaint and the analyst report was not enclosed along with the notice under section 13(2). Section 13 (2) runs thus: “On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub- section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed, under section 14-A, forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so desired, either or both of them may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the 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”. A perusal of Exhibit P-8 shows that on the reverse of the original of the Analyst's report, the thumb impression of A-2 was obtained on 2nd August, 1977. A perusal of Exhibit P-8 shows that on the reverse of the original of the Analyst's report, the thumb impression of A-2 was obtained on 2nd August, 1977. The complaint, though, dated 2nd September, 1977 was filed on 5th September, 1977 as is seen from the seal of the Court affixed on it. Therefore, it is clear that the report of the Analyst was served much earlier to the filing of the complaint. There is, therefore, a clear contravention of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. In P.K. Moorthy v. Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality1 a Division Bench of this Court, (of which I was a member) was of the view that the provisions of sections 13 and 11 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are mandatory and non-compliance with those provisions will vitiate the entire proceedings. In this case, the proceedings are vitiated as the Analyst's report was served much earlier to the filing of the complaint. The order of acquittal is therefore correct and is confirmed though not for the reasons stated by the Magistrate and the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed. R.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.