Judgment The State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor has directed this criminal appeal questioning the order of acquittal made in C.C. No. 46 of 1980 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(1) and (2)(1-a)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence can be stated as follows: P.W. 1, the Food Inspector attached to Kilakarai Town Panchayat on 31st October, 1979 at about 11-15 a.m., purchased 22 soda bottles containing soda colour, each bottle with a capacity of 785 millilitres for the purpose of analysis from the accused after serving Exhibit P-1, Form 6 notice, on him. Exhibit P-2 is the receipt passed by the accused, accepting the receipt of a sum of Rs. 16.20 towards the price of the articles of food purchased by P.W. 1. This food article was intended for sale and for human consumption. P.W. 1 divided the 12 bottles of soda into three equal parts and after observing all the statutory formalities deposited two of the parts with the Local Health Authority and sent one part of the samples to the Public Analyst, who on analysis of the food article, gave his opinion under Exhibit P-6, that the sample contained saccharin in excess of the maximum permitted limit to the extent of 80%. On receipt of Exhibit P-6, P.W. 1 instituted the prosecution on 8th February, 1980. After the institution of the prosecution the Local Health Authority served the copy of the notice under Exhibit P-7 on the accused as required under section 13(2) of the Act on 20th February, 1980. 3. The accused denied the offence. The Court below acquitted the accused on the ground that there was violation of rule 18 of the Rules made under the Act and that P. W. 1’s evidence stands uncorroborated as; P. W. 2 had not supported the Prosecution case. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that these two reasonings are erroneous! and untenable and the Court below is not justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 1, especially when his evidence is corroborated by the documetary evidence, Exhibits P-1 to P-3. I accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that these two reasonings are erroneous! and untenable and the Court below is not justified in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 1, especially when his evidence is corroborated by the documetary evidence, Exhibits P-1 to P-3. I accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. On going through the judgment and records in this case, I find that there is an illegality in the proceedings of the prosecution, in that there had been an ‘unexplained delay of 12 days in serving the copy of the notice on the accused that is contemplated under section 13(2) of the Act which is mandatory. Admittedly, the prosecution was instituted on 8th February, 1980 and Exhibit P-7 notice under section 13(2) of the Act was served on 20th February, 1980. 5. This Court in Abdul Majeed v. State by Food Inspector1 and in Sebastian v. State2, has held that section 13(2) of the Act is mandatory and that any breach of that section could vitiate the trial. As in the present case, there is a breach of the mandatory provisions of the Act, this order of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with. 6. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.