V. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Arnir Hussain against the judgment and order dated 29. 6. 1981 of Sri P. N. Roy, Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. 224 of 1980 by means of which the appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed on him under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were maintained. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of this case were that 0 P. Agarwal, Food Inspector, Nagar Palika, Amroha found the applicant selling milk at the crossing on 22. 11. 1979 at 10. 30 a. m. He suspected this milk to be adulterated, he therefore, disclosed his identity, gave notice to the applicant in Form VI and purchased 660 mililitre of milk for Rs. 1. 32. This milk taken as sample was divided in three parts and sealed in three dean dry phials. One of these when sent to the Public Analyst was found to be deficient in non fatty solids. Sanction of the Chie! Medical Officer was, therefore obtained and the applicant was prosecuted resulting in his conviction as aforesaid ( 3 ) IT was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not complied with because, though a copy of the report of Public Analyst was sent to the applicant but in the intimation sent it was said that the applicant may make an application to the Munsif within ten days and get another part of the milk sent to the Director. Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, for reanalysis. This case was. however, pending not in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate. Amroha but in the Court of 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate at Amroha. The applicant, therefore, could not have possibly made application in the proper Court to get another part of the sample sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for reanalysis and was clearly prejudiced. ( 4 ) IT was argued by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that even if there was some error in the intimation sent to the applicant, when the case proceeded against him, he should have made an application in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate to get the sample sent. ( 4 ) IT was argued by the learned Assistant Government Advocate that even if there was some error in the intimation sent to the applicant, when the case proceeded against him, he should have made an application in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate to get the sample sent. The applicant was further required to make such application within ten days and there is nothing to indicate that he appeared in the court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate within ten days of receiving the same. He was, therefore, prejudiced and the right given by law to get the sample re-analysed was denied to him. For this reason, therefore, he could not be convicted. ( 5 ) THIS revision is therefore, allowed and the conviction of the applicant and the sentence imposed upon him are hereby set aside. He is on bail and need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed. .