JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. - This revision has been filed by one Lalji who was convicted u/s 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. According to the prosecution case, the Chief Food Inspector, Jaunpur, Sri Suhdeo Prasad, had taken sample of the Teesi Oil sold by the applicant on 29-5-1978. Proper notice for taking the sample was given. Its price was paid and receipt for payment of the price was obtained. The sample was divided into three parts. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst through the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur. Another sample was handed over to the applicant and the third sample was detained in the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Jaunpur. The report of the analysis by the Public Analyst shows that the sample contained 62% of Teesi Oil and rest of the Oil was some edible oil. He, however, did not specify what were those oil or oils. 3. After receipt of the report of the Public Analyst sanction of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Jaunpur, for prosecution of the applicant was obtained and the complaint was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. The applicant denied that any sample was taken from him or he had given a receipt of payment of its price. He also denied having received the report of the Public Analyst. He further claimed that he was falsely implicated. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined the Chief Food Inspector Sri Sahdco Prasad PW 1 and Sri Bhriguvansh Singh PW 2. The applicant also examined one Sbambhu Nath Gupta DW 1 in his defence. 5. The learned Magistrate after appraising the evidence convicted and sentenced the applicant as stated above. The conviction and sentence imposed against the applicant were maintained in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. In revision before me it is contended that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the applicant and as such he was deprived of his right to send the sample for further analysis to the Director of Central Laboratories. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned Ex. Ka-6 has been proved by Sri Sahdeo Prasad PW 1. So far as this aspect of the case is concerned Ex. Ka-6 has been proved by Sri Sahdeo Prasad PW 1. This appears to be a carbon copy of the letter sent to the applicant by registered post but the Courts have always insisted on producing the best piece of evidence. In this case neither the registration receipt nor the Acknowledgement Due signed by the applicant had been filed. The applicant had consistently been denying having not received the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the applicant had received the copy of the report of the Public Analyst. There is, therefore, no compliance with the provisions of Section 13 (2). This has certainly prejudiced the applicant and he is entitled to acquittal. 7. The revision is therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentences of imprisonment and fine imposed against the applicant are hereby set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. The fine, if paid shall be refunded to the applicant.