JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 8th April 1981 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in a case under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows :- On 17th June, 1979 at about 6.20 A.M. Sri Tilak Raj (P.W. 1) Food Inspector, Khatema took sample out of the milk in the possession of the applicant. Due formalities as prescribed under the law were complied with. One part of the sample was sent to the Public Analyst, who reported it to be adulterated. Thereafter a complaint was filed for the prosecution of the applicant for selling adulterated milk as also for selling it without licence. The applicant denied the prosecution case. The trial court, however, held the applicant guilty on both the counts and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-on the first count and, to a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. Aggrieved against it the applicant filed an appeal in the court of Sessions. The learned second Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, affirmed the conviction of the applicant on both the counts. The sentence awarded to the applicant on the first count was also maintained but the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- awarded to the applicant on second count was reduced to Rs. 100/-. Dissatisfied with it the applicant has prepared the present revision. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before me was that there has been no compliance in this case of section 13(2) of the the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 13(2) requires :- (a) that after prosecution has been instituted the local authority shall send a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the person from whom the sample was taken. (b) the copy of the report of the Public Analyst shall also be accompanied by an intimation that the person from whose possession the sample was taken, may, if he so desires, make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to get the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. I proceed in this case on the assumption that the compliance of section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory. I have examined evidence adduced by the prosecution from that angle. The prosecution has examined Sri Tilak Raj Food Inspector (P.W. 1), Sri C.D. Bhatt, Despatch clerk of the office of the M.O. (P.W. 2) and Sohan Ram Vaccinator as (P.W. 3). Tilak Raj Food Inspector made categorical statement to the effect that after the institution of the prosecution a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent from the office of the M.O. to the applicant under registered acknowledgement due cover and that Ext. Ka-10 is the true copy of the letter sent to the applicant along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. Sri C.D. Bhatt (P.W. 2) made a statement on the basis of the despatch book of the office of the M.O. that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant under registered acknowledgement due cover. He added that the acknowledgement due card was not received back. The document Ext. Ka-10 states that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was annexed therewith. It further mentions the date on which the proceedings were instituted and that, the applicant could make an application within ten days of the receipt of the letter in the court of II Additional Munsif-Magistrate, for the sample being examined by the Director Central Food Laboratory, if he so desired. 4. Now, if the aforesaid evidence of Sri Tilak Raj, Food Inspector, and Sri C.D. Bhatt is accepted, there remains not an iota of doubt that Section 13(2) of the Act was literally complied with. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, urged that the applicant is not a resident of Nainital but is a resident of Punjab and, consequently, even if the Local Health Authority, Nainital sent any letter of the nature of Ext. Ka-10 alongwith the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to him at Nainital address, it did not reach him. Learned counsel maintained that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst should have been sent on the residential address of the applicant and since it was not done, there has been violation of section 13(2) of the Act. Learned counsel maintained that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst should have been sent on the residential address of the applicant and since it was not done, there has been violation of section 13(2) of the Act. I have given my careful thought to this contention, but I regret my inability to accept the same. Ex. Ka-1 is the intimation given to the applicant when sample was collected from his possession. In this document, the residence of the applicant is mentioned as Barauni, P.O. Zhanent, P.S. Khatema. This document bears the signatures of the applicant in English. The second document Ext. Ka-2 is the receipt executed by the applicant in lieu of the price received. In this document also the address of the applicant is the same as Ext. Ka-1. This document also bears the signatures of the applicant in English, even though the document runs in Hindi. Ext. Ka-3 is the spot note. It is in Hindi. The address of the applicant is mentioned in this document as Lakhvinder Singh son of Cyan Singh, village Barauni, P.O. Jhankau, P.S. Khatema, district Nainital. This document also bears the signatures of the applicant. Obviously, unless the applicant had given that address regarding himself, it could not have been so mentioned in the aforesaid three documents. In any case, the three documents bear the signatures of the applicant, it is no more open to the applicant now to contend that he did not reside in district Nainital but resides in Punjab and the copy of the report of the Public Analyst should have been sent at Punjab address. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the notice should have been sent at Punjab address is, therefore, rejected. 6. Needless to say that when any document is required to be sent by any law under registered acknowledgement due post and it is so despatched, the presumption is that it was received by the addressee, unless contrary is proved. Since there was evidence in this case of the fact that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant under registered acknowledgement due cover alongwith forwarding letter, that presumption shall be available to the prosecution. It is true that the applicant challenged the statement of the two witnesses in cross-examination. He, however, adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. It is true that the applicant challenged the statement of the two witnesses in cross-examination. He, however, adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. It should, therefore, be held that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst along with a forwarding letter, as required by Section 13(2) was served on the applicant. The conviction recorded against the applicant under section 7 read with section 16 for selling adulterated milk, therefore, calls for no interference. 7. This takes me to the conviction recorded against the applicant on the second ground, namely, for selling milk without licence. 8. A perusal of section 16 would show that selling adulterated article of food is punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act while selling an article of food without licence is punishable under section 16(i)(a) (ii). Section 16(1)(a)(ii) can be exracted as follows : "16 '1' Subject to the provisions of sub-section (IA), if any person :- (a) whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distributes any article of food :- (i)......... (ii) other than an article of food referred to in sub-clause (1), in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder; he shall in addition to the penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of section 6, be punishable with imprisonment." 9. I lay stress on the words other than article of food referred to in sub-clause (i). "By using these words in sub-clause (ii) the legislature has exeduded from the ambit the articles of food referred to in sub-clause (i). Sub-clause (i) refers to adulterated article of food. It would, therefore, follow that the prosecution for violation of sub-clause (ii) cannot be launched in respect of an article of food which, according to the prosecution itself is adulterated. Presumably this was so enacted by the Legislature because no licence is granted for sale of adulterated milk. In the instant case, it was the own case of the prosecution that the applicant was selling adulterated milk. This has also been accepted by the two courts below and the applicant has been convicted on that charge. Consequently, the applicant could not be convicted on the second count viz, that of selling adulterated milk without licence. In the instant case, it was the own case of the prosecution that the applicant was selling adulterated milk. This has also been accepted by the two courts below and the applicant has been convicted on that charge. Consequently, the applicant could not be convicted on the second count viz, that of selling adulterated milk without licence. The conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant on that count cannot, therefore, be maintained. 10. This revision is therefore allowed to this extent only that, while conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under section 7/16(1) (a)(i) for selling adulterated milk are maintained, the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under section 16(1)(a)(ii) for selling milk without licence are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence as confirmed by this Court. The bonds furnished by him stand cancelled It the applicant has paid the fine awarded to him on the second count (for selling milk without licence) the same shall be refunded to him.