Judgment This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot Division at Cuddalore in Criminal Appeal No.435 of 1979, confirming the judgment of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ulundurpet in C.C.No.85 of 1979, convicting the revision petitioner under Sections 2(1a) (a), 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced him to undergo R.I., for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to undergo R.I., for three months. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: On 28-9-1978 morning at Karraraj Road, Villupuram, P.W.1, the Food Inspector attached to Villupuram Municipality purchased 700 ml. of cow milk for Rs.1-05 out of the milk kept for sale by the revision petitioner after serving Form VI, the copy of which is marked as Exhibit P-1. He obtained the cash receipt. Exhibit P-2 from the revision petitioner. He divided the sample into three equal parts and poured the same after adding formalin drops in three dry and clean bottles, corked and sealed them. He sent one bottle to the public analyst with Form VII, the copy of which is marked as Exhibit P-3. The remaining two bottles were sent to the Local (Health) Authority. Exhibit P-4 is the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the solids-not-fat content was deficient in the sample to the extent of at least 55 per cent. P.W.1 filed the complaint against the revision petitioner on 7-12-1978. He served S.13(2) notice along with the copy of the report of the Public Analyst on the revision petitioner on 13-12-1978 and obtained acknowledgment from him. 3. When the revision petitioner was examined regarding the circumstances appearing against him, he denied having committed the offence. 4. The trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence for which he was charged, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Aggrieved against this, the accused has filed this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner confined his arguments only with regard to one point, though a number of points were urged in the course of the appeal and in the grounds of revision. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Aggrieved against this, the accused has filed this revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner confined his arguments only with regard to one point, though a number of points were urged in the course of the appeal and in the grounds of revision. He contended that admittedly the complaint was filed against the revision petitioner on 7-2-1978, but S.13(2) notice along with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was served on him only on 15-12-1978 which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of S.13(2) read with Rule 9-A of the Rules framed under the Act, which clearly points out that immediately after the institution of prosecution, the Local (Health) Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis in Form III delivered under sub-rule.(3) of section 7 by registered post or by hand to the person from whom the sample of the articles was taken by the Food Inspector, and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A of the Act. 6. In the instant case, S.13(2) notice was prepared on 13-12-1978 and served on the revision petitioner along with a copy of the analyst report on 15-12-1978 in person, which is against the mandatory provisions of law. Learned counsel cited before me the decision in Sabastian v. State rep. by the Food Inspector, Thanjavur Municipality, (1982) M.L.J. (Crl.) 194: (1982) L.W. (Crl.) 28: (1982) F.A.J. 622: (1982) Crl. L.J. 1359, wherein M.N. Moorthy, J., held as follows: "The word "immediately in Rule 9-A of the P.F.A. Rules would mean ‘at once’ of ‘without delay’ or ‘forthwith’ whatever action is sought to be taken, it should be taken speedily and promptly. The word would connote ‘reasonably quick and prompt time’. It certainly implies that whatever has to be done should be done with all possible speed. A day or two can be taken as ‘immediately’. If the Local (Health) Authority complies with the provisions of S.13(2) read with Rule 9-A within a day or two, it cannot be said to be violative of the tenor or Rule 9-A and the pith and substance of the word ‘immediately’. A day or two can be taken as ‘immediately’. If the Local (Health) Authority complies with the provisions of S.13(2) read with Rule 9-A within a day or two, it cannot be said to be violative of the tenor or Rule 9-A and the pith and substance of the word ‘immediately’. This of-course, is a question of fact and is to be determined taking into consideration all the circumstance in a given case. For instance, in case for the first one or two days if a holiday intervenes then three days may be taken as ‘immediately’. Because of lack of specific provision, it has become susceptible to varied interpretations." In the case cited, there was a delay of 25 days in serving S.13(2) notice on the accused therein. Therefore, the learned Judge set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused therein and acquitted him. The learned Judge relied on the decision of M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J., in Perumal and Ramanarayanan v. Kumbakonam Municipality, (1982) M.L.J. (Crl.) 78, and considered the meaning of the word ‘immediately’ found in the Lexicon Webster Dictionary Encyclopidic Edition, Volume I, as "without delay; instantly at once; forthwith; without the intervention of any space; object or medium; directly ....." The learned Judge also referred to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, wherein the word "immediately" has been described as "without interval of time, without delay straightway or without any delay or ipse of time ....The words "immediately" and "forthwith" have generally the same meaning. These are stronger than the expression "within a reasonable time" d and imply prompt, vigorous action without any delay." 7. As rightly contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner, Section 13(2) notice has not been served on the revision petitioner immediately as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rule 9-A. Both the Courts below have committed to note this contravention. A Bench of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.187 of 1977, P.K. Moorthy v. State, 1979 T.L.N.J.22, is of the view that the provisions of Section 13(2) are mandatory and the non-compliance of the said provisions would vitiate the entire proceedings. This was also the view taken by Maheswaran, J., in Chakravarthi v. State rep. by Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality, (1980) L.W.(Crl) 55. 8. This was also the view taken by Maheswaran, J., in Chakravarthi v. State rep. by Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality, (1980) L.W.(Crl) 55. 8. In the instant case, though the complaint was filed on 7-12-1978, Section 13(2) notice was prepared only on 13-12-1978 and it was served on the revision petitioner on 15-12-1978 and there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay on the side of the prosecution and the said delay by no stretch of imagination can be said to be "immediately" within the provisions of Rule 9-A. Under the amended Act 34 of 1976, the Food Inspector instead of giving one bottle to the accused, sent two sample bottles to the Local (Health) Authority and sent one to the Public Analyst. Therefore, the accused does not know as to what his rights are with regard to the sample bottles which are sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The existing law has undergone a change and is replaced by a complete new law. Therefore, what is required under the amended law is to be followed by the prosecution strictly because the accused does not know as to what he has to do with regard to the sample bottle, which was not given to him, but had been sent to the Local (Health) Authority. The provisions of Section 13(2) read with Rule 9-A are mandatory because they are enacted only to safeguard the rights of the accused and violation of the same would certainly vitiate the proceedings. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine amount, if, any collected shall be refunded to the petitioner. The bail bond shall stand cancelled.