JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Ram Swarup has approached this Court for relief against his conviction under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter, "the Act") and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment whereof he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The conviction was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, on May 13, 1987, in case No. 70/111 of 1986. It was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan, by judgment dated March 15, 1988. The applicant petitioned to this Court from Jail. Since he was unrepresented by a counsel, this Court appointed Shri B. K. Malhotra, Advocate, to appear for the applicant as amicus curiae. 2. On April 4, 1986, applicant Ram Swarup is said to have been intercepted by the Food Inspector (Shri G. R. Puri) of District Sirmour at village Dhaula Kuan, Tehsil Paonta Sahib. He was said to be carrying milk in two drums. The Food Inspector purchased some milk from Ram Swarup. It was goats milk. The milk was split up into three separate samples which were duly put in proper containers. One of the samples was sent to the Public Analyst. It was received by him on April 7, 1986. 3. Report No. 24/April/86, dated May 6, 1986, was made by the Public Analyst. He found, as is mentioned in this report, that the sample analysed by him was deficient in milk solids-not-fat by 20% of the minimum prescribed standard. 4. On the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, and after obtaining the requisite sanction therefor, a complaint was made by the Food Inspector against applicant Ram Swarup under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. 5. The case of applicant Ram Swarup is that no copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to him as required by section 13 (2) of the Act and Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, (for short, "the Rules") framed thereunder. According to the case of the complainant, however, it was duly forwarded to applicant Ram Swarup, though with a delay of one day. According to the case of the complainant, however, it was duly forwarded to applicant Ram Swarup, though with a delay of one day. In other words, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to applicant Ram Swarup on the 11th day after the institution of the prosecution even though, under Rule 9A, it was required to be forwarded within a period of ten days therefrom. This, according to the case of the prosecution, had not resulted in any prejudice to applicant Ram Swarup. 6. Several witnesses were examined at the trial on behalf of the prosecution. Applicant Ram Swarup also examined some witnesses in his defence. In the statement that he made before the Court under section 313, Cr. P. C, Ram Swarup stated, amongst other things, that when he was intercepted by the Food Inspector, he was carrying some milk to his own place for entertaining some guests. In other words, he was not carrying milk for sale. 7. The trial Magistrate concluded that applicant Ram Swarup was intercepted when he was carrying goats milk for sale which was found to be adulterated in the manner mentioned in the report of the Public Analyst. He negatived the plea that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst had not been forwarded to applicant Ram Swarup in accordance with the pro visions of section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules. The reason, which commended to the learned Magistrate in this regard, was that there was evidence to show that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst had been sent to applicant Ram Swarup by registered post. The learned Magistrate, therefore, recorded an order of conviction. 8. Aggrieved, applicant Ram Swarup filed an appeal. 9. Before the Lower Appellate Court the principal submission which was made on behalf of applicant Ram Swarup was that there had been non-compliance with the provision of Rule 9-A which was mandatory in character. As such, he was entitled to an order of acquittal. This plea was not accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence which was awarded to applicant Ram Swarup by the trial Magistrate. 10. As such, he was entitled to an order of acquittal. This plea was not accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, he dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence which was awarded to applicant Ram Swarup by the trial Magistrate. 10. In its material part section 13 (2) says that after the report of the result of the analysis to the effect that the article of food is adulterated is received, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken…………………forward, in such manner, as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person……………. in forming such person that if it is so desired…………….he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the food…………..analysed by the Central Laboratory. Rule 9-A prescribes the mode in which the copy of the report is to be forwarded by the Local (Health) Authority to the accused person. In its material part it says that:— "The Local (Health) Authority shall (within a period of ten days) after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III……………by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector………….. Provided……………." 11. It is clear that in imperative terms it has been laid down in section 13 (2) as well as in Rule 9-A that the Local (Health) Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis of the sample by the Public Analyst to the accused person. Under Rule 9-A, this is to be done within a period of ten days after the institution of the prosecution. Rule 9-A permits the forwarding of the report to the accused person, from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector, either by hand or by registered post. 12. In the present case the Food Inspector (Shri G. R. Puri) entered the witness box as PW 2. Towards the end of his cross-examination he stated in clear terms that he had personally not sent any notice under section 13 (2) to the accused. The Dealing Asstt. 12. In the present case the Food Inspector (Shri G. R. Puri) entered the witness box as PW 2. Towards the end of his cross-examination he stated in clear terms that he had personally not sent any notice under section 13 (2) to the accused. The Dealing Asstt. of the office of the Local (Health) Authority, Nahan, at the relevant time was one Shri K. L. Aggarwal. He appeared as a witness in the case for the prosecution. In his statement as PW 3 he said that he had sent the notice under section 13 (2) to the accused person on July 29, 1986. A copy of the notice so sent was proved by him to be Ex. P. 18 on the record of the case. He also said that the postal receipt (Ex. P. 19) mentioned the date as July 30, 1986. He reiterated that he .had himself sent this notice. 13. Ex. P. 18 is a copy of the communication under section 13 (2) read with Rule 9-A in a printed form. In it, the addressee is applicant Ram Swarup whose parentage and postal address in full is mentioned in the opening part. Ex. P. 19 is the postal receipt issued by the post office concerned showing that a registered letter addressed to Shri Ram Swarup of Bilaspur had been received in the post office for being sent to the addressee. The case of the prosecution is that the envelope in which notice Ex. P. 18 was sent to applicant Ram Swarup was not received back. The case of applicant Ram Swarup was that be never received any such communication. 14. What has been urged with some emphasis by Shri B. K. Malhotra, appearing for applicant Ram Swarup in this Court, has been that the copy of the report of the analysis of the sample of milk was not sent at all to the applicant which was a contravention of the mandatory requirements of section 13 (2) read with Rule 9-A. As such, according to the submission, applicant Ram Swarup was entitled to an acquittal irrespective of the fact whether he had succeeded in establishing that he had been prejudiced on account of the non-receipt of the aforesaid copy of the report or not. 15. 15. Shri Malhotra placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in State v. Loki Nand, ILR 1984 HP 221, in which T. R. Handa, J., took the view that the provisions contained in section 13 (2) and Rule 9-A were mandatory in character and in case of total non-compliance with them, the accused need not specifically plead prejudice because in a case of that nature prejudice to him was writ large. In that case the finding which the learned Judge recorded was that there was total non-compliance with the provision of section 13 (2) of the Act, inasmuch as, the Local (Health) Authority never despatched a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the accused-respondent thereby depriving him of his valuable right of challenging the report of the Public Analyst. The learned Judge upheld the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 16. My attention was drawn to another decision of this Court in the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Thakur Dass, 1983 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 1, in which V. D. Misra, C. J., after noticing a large number of decisions of various High Courts and of the Supreme Court, held that the delay in sending the copy of the report would not vitiate the trial or the conviction under the Act unless it was established that it had result ed in some prejudice to the accused. To borrow the words of the learned Chief Justice (in paragraph 20 of the report): “The primary object of the rule is to ensure that a vendor- accused does not lose, due to the fault of the prosecution, his right to have the sample of food analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. With that end in view it has been enjoined upon the Local (Health) Authority to send a copy of the report with reasonable promptness. Where this is done there is a substantial compliance of this rule. If the delay in sending a copy of the report has, in fact, caused prejudice to the accused, then there is no substantial compliance of this rule. It may be repeated with advantage that the only duty is to send a copy by registered post or by hand. The moment it is done the rule stands complied with. If the delay in sending a copy of the report has, in fact, caused prejudice to the accused, then there is no substantial compliance of this rule. It may be repeated with advantage that the only duty is to send a copy by registered post or by hand. The moment it is done the rule stands complied with. Since the right of the accused to apply to the court for sending the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory arises after the receipt of a copy of report, the delay by the Local (Health) Authority in sending it by itself does not cause any prejudice to the accused." 17. On the facts of that case the learned Judge concluded that the accused had not succeeded in. establishing that any prejudice had been occasioned to him on account of the delay in the sending of the copy of the report of the analysis. 18. The requirement of section 13 (2), as examplified by Rule 9-A, is that a copy of the report of the result of the analysis should be forwarded by the Local (Health) Authority to the person from whom the sample is taken. The rule permits the sending of the copy by two modes. It may be sent by hand. It may be sent by registered post. Where, as in the present case, the Local (Health) Authority choses to send the copy of the report by registered post, it must be established by the prosecution that it had actually been so sent. The burden of establishing the fact that a copy of the report of the analysis had been forwarded to the person, from whom the sample had been taken, is a primal one as far as the Local (Health) Authority is concerned. 19. The word forward to’, in the context in which it is used in section 13 (2) or Rule 9-A, clearly means that it is sent to the person, from whom the sample of the article of food had been taken. One of the meanings of the word forward contained in Websters Third New International Dictionary (Vol. I) (at page 896) is "to send forward, send toward the place of destination, transmit." 20. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, says that "where any Central Act………….. One of the meanings of the word forward contained in Websters Third New International Dictionary (Vol. I) (at page 896) is "to send forward, send toward the place of destination, transmit." 20. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, says that "where any Central Act………….. authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 21. It is clear from the language of section 27 that wherever the concept of sending a document by post is involved, it pre-supposes that the document is sent to the person, to whom it is to be sent, by way of a letter which is properly addressed, pre-paid and posted by registered post. The language of section 27 makes it clear beyond doubt that wherever any Central Act authorises the sending of a document to a person by post, it has, in order to constitute the sending in accordance with law, to be done in the manner contemplated by section 27. More so, where the letter, which is addressed to the person for whom it is meant, is not received back without being delivered to him. 22. In case a letter sent to an addressee by registered post is received back, say after refusal, there would be no difficulty in finding out whether it had been properly addressed to the addressee or not. Where, however, it is not received back, it would be incumbent upon the party claiming that the letter has been sent to the person to whom it is required to be sent, to establish that it was properly addressed to that person. The mere fact that a, communication contains the name of the person to whom it is to be delivered and the name of the town of the destination, would not be sufficient to establish that it was sent to the addressee as required by section 27 or, in any case, the principle implicit therein. 23. The mere fact that a, communication contains the name of the person to whom it is to be delivered and the name of the town of the destination, would not be sufficient to establish that it was sent to the addressee as required by section 27 or, in any case, the principle implicit therein. 23. In the present case the envelope in which the copy of the report is said to have been sent to applicant Ram Swarup has admittedly not been received back. It is not on the record of this case. It is not possible, therefore, to find out as to whether it had been properly addressed to Ram Swarup. The receipt (Ex. P. 19) issued by the post office only mentions the name of applicant Ram Swarup and the town Bilaspur. It does not mention the address at which the envelope, which was accepted for transmission by registered post, was to be delivered. Ex. P. 18, which contains the full address of applicant Ram Swarup, is supposed to be a copy of the document which was placed inside the envelope which was addressed to Ram Swarup by registered post. By rtself it does not show that the same address was mentioned on the envelope in which it was sent. The Dealing Asstt. (PW 3, K. L, Aggarwal), either in his examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination, does not disclose the address which had been mentioned by him on the envelope in which notice Ex. P. 18 was sent to applicant Ram Swarup. He also does not say that he had mentioned the same address of Ram Swarup on the envelope which was mentioned in the opening part of Ex P. 18. 24. In the aforesaid state of evidence it is difficult to sustain the plea that in law the Local (Health) Authority will be deemed to have forwarded a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to applicant Ram Swarup by registered post. 25. What was urged on behalf of the prosecution, in this respect, was that having regard to the aforesaid document and evidence of PW 3, the Court should presume, within the meaning of section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, that the envelope in which the copy of the report was sent to applicant Ram Swarup was correctly addressed. It is difficult to sustain the submission. It is difficult to sustain the submission. More-so, in the circumstances of the instant case, where, admittedly, the prosecution has chosen to place on record evidence to show that a copy of the report had been sent to applicant Ram Swarup. In a case, like the present, where the prosecution offers the evidence for showing that it had forwarded a copy of the report of the analysis to the accused person, from whom the sample of the food article was taken, the Court would not be justified in drawing a presumption of the nature contained in section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act. It would have to examine the matter in the light of the evidence actually brought before it. 26. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dalchand v. Municipal Corporation* Bhopal and another, 1982 (II) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 29, which \Vas relied upon by V. D. Misra, C. J., in Thakur Dass does not laydown any rule to the contrary. What was said in that case was this: ".........Quite obviously the period of ten days was not a period of limitation within which an action was to be initiated or on the expiry of which a vested right accrued. The period of ten days was prescribed with a view to expedite and with the object of giving sufficient time to the person from whom the sample was taken to make such arrangements as he might like to challenge the report of the Public Analyst.........Where the effect of non-compliance with the rule was such as to wholly deprive the right of the person to challenge the Public Analysts Report by obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, there might be just cause for complaint, as prejudice would then be writ large. Where no prejudice was caused there could be no cause for complaint........." 27. The Supreme Court was dealing with Rule 9 (j) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules which has since been deleted and of which requirements were almost the same as those of Rule 9-A. It is clear from the observations of the Supreme Court that the ground of prejudice assumes importance only where there is substantial compliance of the Rule. Not, that even where there was complete non-compliance with the Rule, it would be necessary for the accused person to establish prejudice. Not, that even where there was complete non-compliance with the Rule, it would be necessary for the accused person to establish prejudice. There is nothing in the decision of the Supreme Court or in the decision of V. D. Misra, C. J., in Thakur Dass which runs counter to what has been held by Handa J. in Loki Nand. 28. The learned Asstt. Advocate General, appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh, has strenuously urged that the only submission which was made on behalf of applicant Ram Swarup before the Additional Sessions Judge was that there was a delay of one day in the forwarding of the copy of the report of the Public Analyst which vitiated the conviction. As such, according to the learned Assistant Advocate General, the applicant cannot be permitted to urge before this Court that the copy of the report of the analysis was not forwarded to him at all. My attention was drawn, in particular, to the following portion of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (in paragraph 9 of the judgment) where it was said that:— "It is not disputed that the complaint against the appellant under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act was filed by the Food Inspector on 19-7-1986 and its intimation was duly sent to the Local Health Authority, who issued the notice under section 13 (2) (of the Act) and 9A of the Act (of the Rules) along with the copy of the Public Analyst report on 30-7-1986 as is clear from the receipt of the post office Ex. P-19. This shows that the notice under section 13 (2) (of the Act) read with section (Rule) 9-A of the Act (of the Rules) was issued to the accused on 11th day of the complaint filed by the Food Inspector........." 29. What was urged, on the basis of the aforesaid recital in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, was that it was admitted by applicant Ram Swarup that the copy of the report had been sent to him, though with delay. As such, it was not open to the learned Counsel for the applicant now to urge that it had not been sent. As such, it was not open to the learned Counsel for the applicant now to urge that it had not been sent. The quotation aforesaid only shows that what was not disputed on behalf of the applicant was that the complaint against him had been filed by the Food Inspector on 19-7-1986 and its intimation was duly sent to the Local (Health) Authority. Even assuming that an admission was made that the notice was issued to applicant Ram Swarup on the 11th day of the date of institution of the prosecution, it will not preclude applicant Ram Swarup from contending in this Court that, on the material on the record, it was not proved that the report had been forwarded to him, in terms of the requirement of section 13 (2) of the Act and Rule 9-A of the Rules, in accordance with law. The language in which the provisions of section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are couched rules out the submission that it is not possible for the High Court to entertain a submission on behalf of the applicant which had not actually been raised on his behalf before the lower appellate Court. 30. Since, as held by me, the prosecution has failed to discharge its primal burden of establishing that a copy of the report of the analysis was forwarded to applicant Ram Swarup in accordance with the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules, the conviction of the applicant and sentence awarded to him deserve to be set aside. 31.In the view that I have taken it is not necessary for me to consider in detail or pronounce upon the second contention made on behalf of applicant Ram Swarup that the delay in the analysis of the sample of milk by the Public Analyst robbed it of its value and could not furnish a basis for his conviction. 32. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the applicant and the sentence awarded to him are set aside. The amount of fine, if already deposited, shall be refunded to applicant Ram Swarup. Revision allowed.