JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - Appellant Uma Shanker has filed this appeal against his conviction Under Sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sentence of six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- passed by Sri. C.B. Jayaswal, v. Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh by his judgment and order dated 18-1-1979. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that a raid was organised by the direction of the CMO, Azamgarh on 7-12-75 in the town of Chiraiyakot in the District of Azamgarh and at about 12.30 p.m. the same day Dharamdeo Yadav PW 1 Food Inspector took the sample from the shop of the Appellant. The aforesaid Inspector purchased 375 grams of linseed oil (Tilsi Oil) for sample in the presence of witness Uma Shanker Misra PW 3. The Inspector after taking the sample served a notice in form No. 6 and after dividing the sample in 3 equal parts in separate phials sealed the same on the spot. He also took the signature of the Appellant and also of Uma Shanker Misra PW 3 on the aforesaid form No. 6 and handed over one of the three phials to the Appellant. Subsequently, the sample taken from the Appellant was sent to the Public Analyst on 10-12-75 who after analysis reported that the sample was adulterated. It was found by the Public Analyst that the sample contained about 17% of linseed oil and the remaining was mustard oil. This report was received by the Inspector on 11-3-76. The Inspector sent the copy of the report on 3-11-76 in compliance of Section 13(2) of the Act. Later on the Food Inspector after obtaining the requisite sanction filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh on 1-7-76. During the course of the trial the accused applied for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for examination but the request was rejected by the Court on 19-7-77. However, the Appellant further applied to the Court for sending his sample to the Director Food Laboratory, Calcutta for examination. The Court recalled his earlier order and sent the same to the Director of Food Central Laboratory, Calcutta on 19-10-78 for analysis but the parcel containing the sample was returned back to the trial Court with the report that the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had refused to accept the same. The Court recalled his earlier order and sent the same to the Director of Food Central Laboratory, Calcutta on 19-10-78 for analysis but the parcel containing the sample was returned back to the trial Court with the report that the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the trial Court did not take any action further. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and stated that he was falsely implicted in the case. 4. In support of the prosecution in all three witnesses were examined. Dharam Deo Yadav PW 1, the Food Inspector narrated the entire case in detail. Uma Shanker, PW 3, recovery witness, however, did not corroborate the statement of Dharam Deo Yadav PW 1 and he was treated hostile. Chandrama Ram PW 2, a clerk of the CMO Office deposed that he had sent the sample to the Public Analyst which was in sealed condition. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and also the learned Counsel for the State and I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant has been very seriously prejudiced in defence as the sample sent by the Court for examination by the Director of Central Food Laboratory Calcutta was not analysed as the Director had refused to accept the same. 7. From the order sheet of the case dated 1-1-79 it is clear that the said sample was received back by the Court on that day with a note on the parcel containing the sample that the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta had refused to accept the same. The Court did not pursue further with the respect that the Appellant was deprived of his right which was given to him u/s 13(2) of the Act. It is no doubt correct to say that the application applied to the Court for sending the sample to the Director of Food Laboratory, after ten days from the date of filing of the complaint but in the present as the sample was sent by the Court itself, it was the duty of the Court to have seen that the sample was analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Moreover, in this case the copy of the report of Public Analyst was sent to the Appellant on 18th March 1976 but the complaint was filed by the Food Inspector on 1.1.1976 i.e. after three months of sending the aforesaid copy of the report for analysis. Under the circumstances, it was impossible for the Appellant to have applied to the Court for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis within the specified period. 8. Under the circumstance, there appears to be substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant was very seriously prejudiced in his defence as his sample could not be examined by the Director of Food Laboratory, Calcutta. 9. It was further contended that there has been violation of Section 11(1-C) of the Act which had also vitiated the trial. Reliance has been placed on Gaya Prasad Vs. State, (1979) AWC 761 and 1982 ALR 396 in support of the aforesaid contention. It also, therefore is apparent that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 11(1-C) of the Act which has also occasioned a failure of justice in this case as Appellant has been very seriously prejudiced in his defence. 10. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the conviction and sentence of the Appellant as recorded by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are set aside. The Appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.