JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Babu against the judgernent and order dated 31.7.1981 of Sri Ruri Mai, Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 1980 by means of which he dismissed the appeal and maintained tie conviction and the sentence of the applicant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that on 28.10.1979 at about 7 p.m. R.K. Sharma, Food Inspector, Kuraoli, purchased 660 ml. buffalo milk from the applicant in Mohalla Kaua Tola of Kuraoli, town and sealed it in three bottles. He gave notice in Form VI to the applicant and paid the price of the milk. One of the sealed bottles when sent to the Public Analyst was found to contain 3.2% milk fat and 6.3% non-fatty milk solids. Since there was deficiency both in milk fat and non-fatty milk solids in this sample, therefore, sanction of the Chief Medical Officer, Mainpuri, was obtained and the applicant prosecuted for adulteration of milk and has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. The first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant was J that in this case there was breach of Section 13(2) of the Act because j the report of the Pu die Analyst was sent to the applicant on 24.5.1980 much before the complaint was filed. According to the learned counsel for the : applicant there was thus a breach of Section 13(2) of the Act because the report of the Public Analyst was sent to him before the prosecution had been 1 launched and, therefore, the applicant did not know where he was to make his application to get the another part of the sample sent to the Central Food 1 Laboratory for re-analysis and, therefore, he was prejudiced. It would, however, be seen that the complaint in this case was not filed on 18.8.1980, but was approved that day. This complaint in fact was filed on 19.4.1980 and it was after ; the filing of this complaint that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was , sent to the applicant as required by Section 13(2) of the Act, thus this provision of the Act was not breached in any manner. 4. It was then urged the that applicant does not sell milk. 4. It was then urged the that applicant does not sell milk. R.K. Sharma, Food Inspector, and PW 3 Girish Kumar both stated that they did not see the applicant ever selling milk before that date. The applicant also specifically stated that he did not sell milk and it was also very significant that he did not sign the receipt exhibit 1 or notice in Form VI exhibit 2. It would thus be seen that he did not sell milk and did not sell milk that day to the Food Inspector therefore even if the milk being carried by the applicant was adulterated, he could not be convicted. 5. This revision is, therefore, allowed the conviction of the applicant and the sentence awarded to him are hereby set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged.