Order This revision is directed against the conviction of petitioner under section 7(1) read with 2(i-a)(m) and section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and the fine of Rs.1, 000 in default to undergo S.I. for three months by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, which were confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly stated as follows: The Food Inspector P.W.1 stopped the accused on 3rd February, 1982 at about 9.15 a.m. who was carrying milk for sale in brass pots on his bicycle and after disclosing his identity he purchased 660 ml. of cow's milk for Rs.1.62 and obtained a receipt Ex. P.2. he also served a copy of the Form VI Ex. P.1 on the accused. Thereafter he divided the sample milk into three equal portions, poured each portion into three clean, empty, dry bottles, added 18 drops of formalin preservative to each portion, closed each bottle tightly with cork, wrapped each bottle with thick brown paper, pasted Local (Health) Authority slip around brown paper on each bottle, obtained the signature of the accused on all bottles and then sealed the samples in the presence of the accused and P.W.2. Then P.W.I sent the bottle to the Public Analyst with a copy of Form VII on 4th February, 1982 and also sent the remaining two bottles to the Local (Health) Authority. The Local Health Authority received the Public Analyst's report Ex. P.3 which is to the effect that the sample contained 4.1 fat and therefore the milk was adulterated. It is further, stated therein that milk solids not fat was 7.0%, which is deficient in milk solids not fat to the extent of at least 17 per cent. After receipt of sanction order Ex.P.4 prosecution was launched against the accused and intimation Ex.P.5 was sent to the accused about the filing of the case against him and the intimation was acknowledged by the accused under Ex.P.6. Thereafter a Complaint was tiled against the accused. In support of the case, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector P.W.1 and three other witnesses namely P.W.2 witness to the mahazar, P.W.3 Local (Health) Authority, and P.W.4 another Food Inspector, and files Exs.P.l to P.6. Thereafter a Complaint was tiled against the accused. In support of the case, the prosecution examined the Food Inspector P.W.1 and three other witnesses namely P.W.2 witness to the mahazar, P.W.3 Local (Health) Authority, and P.W.4 another Food Inspector, and files Exs.P.l to P.6. The plea of the accused is one of denial. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the reasons assigned in his judgment convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in the opening Paragraph of this judgment He was unsuccessful before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence the revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Arunachalam mainly submitted that in the instant case in the notice Ex.P.5 under S.13(2) of the Act the name of the Court in which the prosecution was launched has not been mentioned and as such the petitioner was deprived of the substantial right to challenge the Analyst report and therefore the entire prosecution has to fail. The learned counsel also submitted that though the Analyst report is dated 10th February, 1982, the prosecution was launched in August, 1982, i.e., after six months and the delay has not been explained and the delay in launching the prosecution resulted in prejudice to the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for Pondicherry submitted that S.13(2) is not mandatory but only directory and that since the accused has not specifically taken the plea before the lower Court and it is a technical plea, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same in the revision stage and in any event the concurrent finding of both the Courts below cannot be reversed on that score. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the failure to mention the Court in the notice under S.13(2) of the Act resulted in miscarriage of Justice and the non-compliance of mandatory provision would vitiate the entire prosecution case against the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. The question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the failure to mention the Court in the notice under S.13(2) of the Act resulted in miscarriage of Justice and the non-compliance of mandatory provision would vitiate the entire prosecution case against the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Arunachalam drew my attention to the decision in Criminal Appeal No.419 of 1978 State by Public Prosecutor v. Palanichamy judgment dated 22nd October, 1981) wherein Sathar Sayeed, J., had an occasion to consider a similar question and held that: “As per the rules framed under the Act, the respondent is entitled to or had a right to apply for sending the sample seized from him and kept by the Local Health Authority to the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. This is a valuable right conferred on the accused person If the accused person is not informed as to which Court he has to apply and in which Court the case is pending against him, the valuable right afforded to him under the Act is lost, which would vitiate the prosecution case”. 4. In Criminal Appeal Nos.58, 127, 177, 802, 812 and 825 of 1979, while disposing of C.A.No. 127 of 1979 State by Public Prosecutor v. Sellamuthu State by Public Prosecutor v. Sellamuthu 1981 L.W.(Crl.) 299, judgment dated 24th November, 1981) Ratnavel Pandian, J., (As he then was), held that: “In addition to the above ground, I would like to point out that there is one more ground in Crl. Appeal No.127 of 1979 viz., in the memo of intimation under S.13(2) of the Act served on the accused, the Local (Health) Authority has not specified the Court before which the prosecution has been launched. This is in breach of the provisions of S.13(2) of the Act?. In Kandasami v. Food Inspector, Athoor Kandasami v. Food Inspector, Athoor A.I.R.1970 Allahabad 122, a Division Bench consisting of Natarajan, and Maheswaran, JJ., on a reference made regarding the correctness of the view taken by Paul, J., in Crl.R.C. No.7 of 1978 in his order dated 18th June, 1979, held that: “If the report is received before the institution of prosecution, to which Court is the affected person to make his application? There may be stations where there may be more than one Magistrate to deal with cases filed under the Act. There may be stations where there may be more than one Magistrate to deal with cases filed under the Act. The affected person may not be in a position to know to which Court he must make the application.” Their Lordships have also observed that, “The accused will be left wandering in which Court he should make application and as to whom he would make the application.” 5. The Government Advocate for Pondicherry drew my attention to a decision in Babboo v. State Babboo v. State A.I.R.1970 All. 12, wherein it was held by a single Judge of that Court that, “Where the accused from whom the sample of cow's milk was taken, was sought to be prosecuted after six months before the expiry of 10 months from he date on which the sample was collected it could not be said that the accused was deprived of an opportunity to avail himself of the benefit of the provisions contained in S.13, if the necessary precautions prescribed by the Rules for preserving the same have been taken.” Relying on the decision the learned Government Advocate submitted that even if the prosecution was launched after a delay of six months, such delay would not vitiate the prosecution. After going through the decision I find that the said decision has no relevance to the present case. The question in this case is whether the statutory right that is available to the accused has been deprived of by not sending a proper notice. We do not find any material to show that the sample was preserved and it was in good condition. In this case even after the receipt of report of Public Analyst Ex. P.3 on 10th February, 1982 the prosecution was launched after six months and Ex.P.5 was issued on 12th August, 1982. Certainly the accused was prejudiced by not mentioning the name of the Court in the notice and it is not in dispute that there are number of Courts in Pondicherry and not only one Court which is located in Pondicherry. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Certainly the accused was prejudiced by not mentioning the name of the Court in the notice and it is not in dispute that there are number of Courts in Pondicherry and not only one Court which is located in Pondicherry. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. T. S. Arunachalam drew the attention of this Court to a decision in Allahabad High Court in Braj Bihari Lal v. State Braj Bihari Lal v. State 1981 F.A.J. 149, wherein it was held that, “In as much as a valuable right is conferred on the accused to get the sample examined by the Central Food Laboratory, the accused is apprised of the prosecution which has been launched against him so that he could move the Court in which the prosecution has been launched against him to send the sample kept with the Local (Health) Authority for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory. The provision being mandatory, it must be Complied with in all its particulars. In the present case the report of the Analyst was despatched on 9th May, 1978 while the Complaint was instituted on 10th May, 1978. The applicant was not apprised of the name of the Court in which the prosecution was being launched and as such he could not approach the Court within the prescribed period of ten days to sent the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, non-compliance of a mandatory provision goes to the very root of the prosecution case, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant could not sustain.” The above said decision is directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the fact that the name of the Court in which the prosecution against the petitioner was launched was not mentioned in Exhibit P.5 notice under section 13(2) of the Act, the entire prosecution against the petitioner is vitiated. The conviction is not sustainable. 6. In the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. Find amount if paid is directed to be refunded to the petitioner. B.S.----- Petition allowed.