JUDGMENT G.K. Mathur, J. - Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1977 passed by Sri K.P. Mathur, Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 502 of 1976 by which Surendra Kumar accused-opposite party has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the papers. The case of the above. prosecution, in brief, has been that on 4th December, 1974 at about 12.40 p.m. Food Inspector, T.D. Murjhani found the appellant selling 'Chana Besan' at his shop situate at 103 Zero Road, Allahabad and for the purposes t of taking sample of the said 'Besan' purchased 600 Gms. 'Besan' and prepared j the samples as required under law and sent them for analysis. On the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst dated 4th March, 1975 the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad granted sanction on 30th April, 1975 for the prosecution of the accused and consequently a complaint was filed against the accused. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined T.D. Murjhani, Food Inspector and S C. Srivastava, Food clerk. The accused pleaded not guilty. The learned trial court found the case not proved against the accused-opposite party No 1 and acquitted him as indicated above. 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of acquittal the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Maha palika, Allahabad has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court was not justified in holding that the sanction has been given by the ; Nagar Swasthya Adhikari without applying his mind. He also submitted that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused-opposite party by registered post and the findings given by the learned trial court are against the facts. 5. The Food Inspector T.D. Murjhani simply stated that he sent the report of the Public Analyst to the accused by registered post. The payers relating to sending of the report by registered post have, however, not been placed on the record. The postal receipt has not been filed. 5. The Food Inspector T.D. Murjhani simply stated that he sent the report of the Public Analyst to the accused by registered post. The payers relating to sending of the report by registered post have, however, not been placed on the record. The postal receipt has not been filed. The accused-opposite party has specifically stated that he did not receive any report of the Public Analyst In this view of the matter the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the report of the Public Analyst was not delivered to the accused - opposite party. There is no need to enter into the question [whether the finding of the learned trial court about non application of mind in granting the sanction by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, is incorrect, because the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground that the report of the Public Analyst was not delivered to him. The appeal has, therefore, no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.