JUDGMENT M.M. Gupta, J. - This revision has been filed by applicant Ram Nath who was convicted by Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He was sentenced to R. I. for six moriths and a fine of Rs. 1500/-. 2. It appears that on 24th April, 1980, J.P. Dhuria Chief Food Inspector Mobile Squad accompanied by Food Inspector Sri Ram Srivastava who went to the shop of the applicant and after giving notice of taking sample for Til oil he purchased 875 Gms. of til oil after paying Rs. 4.85. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed. One of them was sent to the Public Analyst, the other was handed over to the applicant and the third was retained in the office of the Chief Medical Officer. The Public Analyst in his report reported that the sample contained 6.08 % of olic acid which exceeded the prescribed limit of 3 %. The sample was, thus, adulterated. It is claimed by the prosecution that the sanction for the prosecution of the applicant was obtained from the Chief Medical Officer and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. It is also claimed that the requisite notice was sent to the applicant, by registered post. 3. The applicant in his defence denied having been given the notice. He also denied having received the sample. He also denied having received the report of the Public Analyst, or the notice sent along with it. 4. At the trial P. W. 3 Chief Food Inspector J. P. Dhuria and two other witnesses namely P. W. 1 Sri Ram Srivastava, and Vazir Ashraf P. W. 2, who was the clerk of the office of the Chief Medical Officer and P. W. 5 Nanku Ram Despatch Clerk of the same office were examined. P. W. 4 Nanku Ram was examined to prove the despatch of the report to the applicant. 5. Both the courts below found the prosecution case established against the applicant. The applicant has now come up in revision against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine. 6. One of the contentions raised in this revision relates to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 5. Both the courts below found the prosecution case established against the applicant. The applicant has now come up in revision against his conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine. 6. One of the contentions raised in this revision relates to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Under that section it is duty of the Health Authority that after the institution of the prosecution a copy of the report containing the result of the analysis shall be sent to the accused informing him that if he desires he may make an application within ten days of the report of the Public Analyst to get the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. I have been taken through the record of this case and also the judgments of the two court below. It appears from the statement of P. W. 4 Nanku Ram, Despath Clerk of the office of the Chief Medical Officer that on 8th December, 1980 a notice by the registered post was sent to the applicant. However, the copy of the letter that was sent to the applicant that he was given an opportunity to make an application for getting the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory within ten days of the receipt of that letter is not on the record. Apart from it the applicant has examined postal employee D. W. 1 Siromani Rai, who has stated that the letter sent by the office of the Chief Medical Officer was served on Gaya Prasad and not on the applicant. There is no evidence to show that Gaya Prasad had received the notice on behalf of the applicant. In such circumstances it cannot be held that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were complied. There being no proper compliance of these rules the applicant has been greatly prejudiced. In such circumstances the conviction of the applicant cannot be maintained. 8. The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed against the applicant is hereby set aside. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.