JUDGMENT R. K. Sbukla, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-6-1981, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, whereby he has confirmed the conviction and sentence of six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29-1-1978 at about 8.45 a.m. Food Inspector Nagar Palika, Muzaffarnagar Sri R. K. Goel PW 1 took a sample of 6.60 grams of buffalo milk from the applicant for chemical test on payment of Rs. 1.80. After observing all formalities, the sample was sent to the Public Analyst for report on 30-1-1978, which was received by him on 15-6-1978. The report of the Public Analyst, Ex. Ka-4 dated 8-6-1978 reveals that there was deficiency of 3% in fat and 9% in non-fatty solid contents, which was below the prescribed standard under the Act. Thus the milk was found adulterated. After obtaining sanction, Ex. Ka-6, for the prosecution of the applicant from the local health authorities, a complaint Ex. Ka-5, was filed in the court of the Munsif/Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar on 30-11-1978. A copy of the report of the analysis in Form III along with a letter was sent to the applicant on 7-12-1978 through registered post on the address provided by the applicant at the time of taking of the sample which returned unserved. The prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely, R. K. Goel P. W. 1, Mahendra Pal Singh PW 2 and Om Das, Safai Naik PW 3 in support of its case 3. The applicant has stated that the Food Inspector purchased 6.60 grams buffalo milk from him ; but he has not paid its price. He has admitted that he was checked by the Food Inspector and he signed the notice and receipt, Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He further stated that the milk was not for sale, but the same was being taken by him to the house of his sister in Mohalla Mallupur, who was ill. That milk was given to the applicant by his brother-in-law, Sukhbir Singh to deliver it to his sister. In support of his defence he has produced three witnesses namely, Dr. R. K. Sharma DW 1, Sukhbir Singh DW 2 and Nain Singh DW 3. 4. That milk was given to the applicant by his brother-in-law, Sukhbir Singh to deliver it to his sister. In support of his defence he has produced three witnesses namely, Dr. R. K. Sharma DW 1, Sukhbir Singh DW 2 and Nain Singh DW 3. 4. After considering the entire evidence on record the Munsif/Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which has been confirmed in appeal by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnager, hence this revision. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the milk was not for sale In this connection he has referred the statement of Dr. R. K. Sharma DW 1 and Sukhbir Singh DW 2 The doctor does not say that this milk was being taken by the applicant for the doctor or his patient. He has also stated that the applicant was in his service and the applicant told him that he was checked by the Food Inspector when he was taking the milk to his sister. Sukhbir Singh DW 2 the brother-in-law of the applicant has stated that he gave the applicant 4 Kgs milk to deliver it to his sister. There is a concurrent of fact by both the lower courts that the milk was for sale there is no need to interfere with that finding. Moreover, the quantity of 4-5 Kgs of milk itself suggests that it was for sale and not for being taken to the patient, who could hardly need this much milk Therefore, I find no force in this argument and reject it. 5. The next point urged on behalf of the applicant is that there is no compliance of Sec. 13 (2) of the Act. According to him the report of the Public Analyst was given to him in the Court on 6-3-1980 and on the same day he immediately applied for getting the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The Magistrate wrongly rejected his request and deprived the applicant of the benefit of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on two decisions (i) State of Haryana v. Jagtar Singh, 1981 Prevention of Fool Adulteration Journal 26 and (ii) Mahabir v. State, 1981 Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 625. 6. The Magistrate wrongly rejected his request and deprived the applicant of the benefit of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on two decisions (i) State of Haryana v. Jagtar Singh, 1981 Prevention of Fool Adulteration Journal 26 and (ii) Mahabir v. State, 1981 Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 625. 6. On the other hand learned Assistant Government Advocate, Sri A. K. Dwivedi contended that as soon as the accused appeared in the court in pursuanee of the summons issued by the trial court, he must have come to know of the report of the Public Analyst, and thereafter, it was open to him to exercise his right to get the second sample sent to the Laboratory as envisaged under section 13 (2) and thus the applicant cannot take the advantage of noncompliance of Rule 9-A as well as section 13 (2). At the outset it may be pointed out that the present applicant had two addresses ; first given at the time of taking of sample, which is noted in the complaint, Ex. Ka-5, as Ram Swarup son of Sri Bhartu, resident of village Meerapur (Nayagaon), P. S. Kotwali, district Muzaffarnagar. This was his temporary address given at the time when the: sample was taken and in his statement under section 313 CrPC. Second address as given in the ground of appeal and in this revision is village Dungar Kishanpur P. S. Gangoh, District Saharanpur. It appears that the second address was not known to the Food Inspector or the local health authorities, because notice on the complaint was sent to the accused on his first address in compliance of which he appeared in the trial court. Therefore, the Cheif Medical Officer attempted to comply with the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A and sent a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and a notice to the applicant on his first address through a registered post with acknowledgement due on 7-12-1978, which returned unserved according to the statement; of Mahendra Pal Singh F 1. PW 2, which reads as under :- Thus the registered A. D. was received back by the local health authority with the endorsement of the Postman, "Is gaon me is nam pate ka admi nahin hai. PW 2, which reads as under :- Thus the registered A. D. was received back by the local health authority with the endorsement of the Postman, "Is gaon me is nam pate ka admi nahin hai. " Unforunately except the Acknowledgement Due, Ex Ka-9 registered envelope and the report and notice were handed over to the applicant in the court by Mahendra Pal Singh PW 2 on 6-3-1980, which is clear from the record. The applicant Ram Swarup moved an application (paper no 24) on the same day for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory for re-examination and he was prepared to deposit the fee for the same but the Magistrate vide his order dated 6-3-1980 rejected the aforesaid application and passed the following order on the back of the said application as under :- "The complaint was filed on 30-11-78 and accused had appeared in the court on 29-1-79 as per order sheet The accused has never applied for analysis by Central Food Laboratory previously. There is no sense to send the sample for analysis after a long period at this stage. Rejected Sd. Illegible. 6-3-80." From the above report of the Postman contents of which has been brought on the record by Mahendra Pal Singh F. I PW 2 in his statement, it is clear that the addressee was not living in that village. Thus, it was not a case of refusal by the addressee. Second address was not known to the prosecution agency. Therefore, in these circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution agency to handover the aforesaid documents to the applicant on the first day when he appeared on 30-11-1978 in the trial court in response to summon sent to him at his aforesaid address. The unserved copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not given to the applicant on 30-11-1978 but the same was handed over to him on 6-3-1980. To my mind it was the duty of the trial court also to see whether the compliance of section 13 (2) and Rule 9-A was done or not. In any case in the circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid rejection order passed by the trial court on the application moved by the applicant was not proper in the interest of justice. In any case in the circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid rejection order passed by the trial court on the application moved by the applicant was not proper in the interest of justice. The appellate court has also ignored it Under these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that is has caused prejudice to the applicant. 7. In similar circumstances a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagtar Singh, 1981 Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 26 has rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the State and held as under : "The learned State counsel contended that as soon as the accused appeared in the court in pursuance of the summons issued by the trial court, the accused must have come to know of the report of the Public Analyst, and thereafter it was open to him to exercise his right to get the second sample sent to the Laboratory as envisaged under Section 13 (2) and thus the accused cannot take advantage of the non compliance of Rule 9 (j). Under Section 13 (2) as well as Rule 9 (j), the Food Inspector or the Local Health Authority has been expressly enjoined the duty to supply a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused within a specified time. The prosecution cannot get out of the rigour of these provisions only on the plea that the accused was likely to have knowledge of the adverse report of the Public Analyst. The accused having been acquitted by the trial Court, it will not be in the interest of justice to take a different view in the circumstances of this case as referred to above. " 8. In the instant case the sample was taken on 29-1-1978. With effect from January 4, 1977, Rule 9 (j) was deleted and a new Rule 9-A was enforced according to which the local health authority was duty bound to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused immediately after the institution of the prosecution. Therefore, in the present case Rule 9-A will be applicable. With effect from January 4, 1977, Rule 9 (j) was deleted and a new Rule 9-A was enforced according to which the local health authority was duty bound to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused immediately after the institution of the prosecution. Therefore, in the present case Rule 9-A will be applicable. The underlying; purpose of Section 13 (1) and (2) and Rule 9-A is to clearly confer a right on the accused to get the second sample tested from the Central Food Laboratory and as such, duties were cast on the Food Inspector and local Health authority so that this right may not be frustrated in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 interpreting the scope of section 13 (2) of the Act, the Supreme Court has held that the prosecution should proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as the conclusive evidence of its contents. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, the vendor, in his trial is so seriously prjeudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in case of the facts contained therein. After going through the entire statements and documents on the record, I feel that the presumption of service of notice will not be drawn in this case, because the registered letter has returned unserved. Unfortunately the Postman has not been produced. There is no evidence on the record nor any question has been put to the accused under section 313 CrPC that he connived with the Postman and got the aforesaid report written on the envelope of registered post. Under the circumstances rejection of the applicant's application dated 6-3-1980 for sending the sample for examination by Central Food Laboratory has definitely caused prejudice to the applicant. 9. In view of the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be upheld and he deserves acquittal. 10. In the result the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Ram Swarup applicant are hereby set aside and he is acquitted. 9. In view of the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the applicant cannot be upheld and he deserves acquittal. 10. In the result the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Ram Swarup applicant are hereby set aside and he is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not -surrender. Fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.