PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision application the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh and confirmed in appeal by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, are assailed. ( 2 ) IN short, the prosecution case is that, on 7-6-1986 the petitioner was transacting sale of adulterated cow milk; the Food Inspector, Sundargarh purchased 0. 660 mls. of cow milk on payment of requisite price and after dividing the purchased milk into three equal divisions added 18 drops of 40% formalin to each of the divisions; packed them in clean, dry, empty and neutral glass bottles separately; the mouth of the glass bottles were fitted tight with corks, sealed and after affixing the label copies, as required under law, they were wrapped with papers and fastened with threads properly and both the ends of the papers were folded and affixed with gum; the paper slips bearing serial number, code number and the signature of the local Health Authority on the above sample bottles were wrapped and the signature of the petitioner was taken on a part of the paper slips and a part of the paper wrapper : the three sample bottles were sealed at different places, one part of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst of the Government of Orissa along with a memorandum in Form No. VII under the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') and the specimen impression of the seal used by registered parcel; the remaining two sample bottles were delivered in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh, on 1-7-86 the report of the public analyst was received wherefrom it was found that the quality of the sample of cow milk fell below the prescribed standard, and was therefore adulterated within the meaning of S. 2 (ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'); the Food Inspector felt that since the petitioner had committed an offence by exposing and storing adulterated cow milk for sale for human consumption his prosecution in accordance with law was necessitated; and accordingly submitted all the relevant documents to the sanctioning authority (the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh) for obtaining his written consent to file prosecution and after obtaining the consent submitted the prosecution report. It is further stated that a copy of the report of the public analyst was sent by registered post with A. D. to the petitioner and that the petitioner had a right to get the samples examined by the Central Food Laboratory u/s. 13 (2) of the Act, which he did not avail. ( 3 ) ON examination of the materials on record, the learned trial Magistrate held that the petitioner was guilty u/s. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and convicted him thereunder. On the question of sentence he heard the petitioner and directed that the petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. This judgment of conviction and sentence was assailed in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, who confirmed the conviction and sentence. ( 4 ) IN revision, though several grounds of attack were pressed to upset the findings of guilt, ultimately it was restricted to one major ground of challenge. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the copy of public analyst's report purported to have been sent to the petitioner by registered post was received by him. The conclusions of the learned Magistrate and the learned appellate Judge that the receipt showing despatch of a letter to the petitioner by registered post was sufficient compliance of the requirement of S. 13 (2), and the Presumption that the documents in question had been received by the petitioner is erroneous. Relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1989 (1) OLR 340 : (1989 Cri LJ 1613) (Bijaya Kumar Ram. v. State), it was submitted that mere despatch of a letter to the petitioner is not sufficient compliance of S. 13 (2) of the Act, which confers a valuable right on him and he having been deprived of the opportunity afforded by law the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. On behalf of the State it has been urged that law never stipulates actual service, and mere forwarding of the report of the public analyst and other papers, is sufficient compliance of the statutory requirements. On behalf of the State it has been urged that law never stipulates actual service, and mere forwarding of the report of the public analyst and other papers, is sufficient compliance of the statutory requirements. ( 5 ) ON consideration of the rival submissions, I find that S. 13 (2) confers a valuable right on the accused to prove his innocence by getting the sample tested by Central Food Laboratory. The requirements of S. 13 (2) are mandatory. as held by this Court in 65 ( 1988) CLT 35. (1989 Cri LJ 264) (M/s Sashikant and Co. and six others v. The State of Orissa ). The following observations of Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 970 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram), puts the matter beyond a shadow of doubt"it appears to us that when a valuable right is confined by S. 13 (2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by the court as conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial is so seriously prejudiced 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 the case of the facts contained therein. "the further question that arises for consideration is whether the mere despatch of a letter per se can raise presumption of service of the same. May be, in certain cases a presumption is available, where the letter is sent by registered post, properly addressed. "the further question that arises for consideration is whether the mere despatch of a letter per se can raise presumption of service of the same. May be, in certain cases a presumption is available, where the letter is sent by registered post, properly addressed. But in order to satisfy the rigid requirements of S. 13 (2) which confers a valuable right on the accused to prove his evidence, the actual receipt has to be established by the prosecution. In the instant case, it only appears from the records that there is a receipt of the postal department showing that a letter was addressed to one B. D. Jena of Sundargarh. There is also no evidence forthcoming from record that the aforesaid B. D. Jena is the petitioner. None of the prosecution witnesses has even breathed a word about this aspect. Specific complaint of the petitioner was about non-service of copy of the report on him. Significantly the acknowledgement receipt is also not produced and exhibited and no attempt has been made to explain as to why the same was not tendered in evidence. Further, S. 13 (2) provides for intimation to the accused about the availability of a remedy to get the sample tested in the Central Food Laboratory. The report of the Central Food Laboratory supersedes the report of the public analyst. It is not despatch, but service which would be compliance of the requirements of S. 13 (2 ). It would be relevant to quote certain conclusions of a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1989 (I) FAC 81 (The State of Punjab v. Deboo), where Justice M. M. Punchhi (as his Lordship was then) observed as follows :" If sending of the report by the Local (Health) Authority is mandatory u/s. 13 (2) of the Act read with R. 9-A of the Rule a fortiori it sequels that it is mandatory for the Local (Health) Authority simultaneously to expressly inform the accused that if it is so desired an application can be made by him or them to the Court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample of article of food kept by him analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. And if he sends the report and not draws the required attention of the accused to such statutory right, it would in our view be again fatal to the prosecution. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx thus in our considered view, both the requirements of S. 13 (2) of the Act i. e. sending of the report of the Public Analyst and drawal of specific attention of the accused to his right are mandatory and non-compliance of both or complaints of one and not the other, would in both events be fatal to the prosecution. So, this part of S. 13 (2) of the Act, we hold as mandatory non-compliance of which and in any event uptil the commencement of effective Court proceedings would vitiate the proceedings. The other parts of the provision where time schedule is laid or prescribed, or expedition expected, we hold as directory, fatal to the prosecution only if material prejudice can be shown to have been caused to the accused by delayed compliance or observance thereof and in that sense noncompliance. We hold accordingly. "the absence of intimation to the petitioner that the sample collected from him under Rule 9a of the Rules was adulterated, renders it an illusory remedy. Mere despatch of the document without proof of service is not sufficient compliance of the requirements of law. A combined reading of S. 13 (2) and Rule 9a makes it clear that the legislative intent was to intimate the accused the result of analysis of the sample collected from him, and to give him the option of exercising his right to get the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. As held by this Court in the case of Bijay Kumar Ram (supra), the prosecution has to show that the copy of the report in question was in reality served on the intended person. Similar view was also expressed by this Court in the case of Rama Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa reported in 1985 (1) OLR (NOC) 29 (sic ). ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate and the learned appellate Judge were therefore, not correct in holding that there was presumption of receipt of copy of the report by the petitioner. On that ground alone, the conviction as directed cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate and the learned appellate Judge were therefore, not correct in holding that there was presumption of receipt of copy of the report by the petitioner. On that ground alone, the conviction as directed cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) FOOD adulteration is one of the most heinous crimes. It affects public health and no stones should be left unturned to prevent escape of any member of the adulterer tribe from the nets of law. The liability in law is absolute, with mandatory sentence but the conviction is dependent on sophisticated chemical tests, complied with rigorous requirements to ensure fair trial to the accused. The adulterer should not be permitted to benefit from lack-lustre and inapt handling of prosecution. By such acts, gross dis-service is done to the society. In the instant case, I am constrained to observe that the prosecution was conducted in a manner, which left much to he desired. ( 8 ) IN the result, the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. Fine, if any, realised be refunded, and the bail bond be discharged. Revision allowed.