JUDGMENT 1. - The (earned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by his order dated 13.12.81. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal. 2. On August 20th, 1979 Food Inspector Devi Singh (P.W.l) purchased 450 grams of pure ghee from the shop of M/s Mungaram Ramchand in Bharatpur and at the time of this purchase the person who sold the ghee was respondent Jagannath. Necessaiy forms were prepared, signatures were obtained and the ghee was divided in three bottled, wrest and sealed, so far there is no dispute between the parties. 3. This sample of ghee was sent to the public Analyse for examination and the report was received that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standard. Upon this, the Food Inspector filed a complaint and proceeding were started. 4. The only ground on which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused is the non-compliance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. I of the Act. It was contended that (here was no proof on record to show that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused and in absence of this communication, he has been deprived of his valuable under Section 13(2) of the Act. 5. P.W.l Devi Singh when he was in the witness stated that he received the report of the public analyst through Local Health Authority and then after collect all the papers, he obtained sanction for the prosecution and filed challan before the court and informed the Local Health Authority about the same. He further stated that a copy of the rep art of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused along with notice by the Local Health Authority. 6. No one appeared on behalf of the Local Health Authority to state that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:- 13. 6. No one appeared on behalf of the Local Health Authority to state that a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:- 13. Report of Public Analyst, (2) On receipt of the report of the result of analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution or prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken and the person, if any whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14a forward, in such manner as may be prescribe a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may informing such person or persons that if it is no desired, either or both of them 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 article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The purpose of sending the report of the Public Analyst to the person whose sample of food has been found to be adulterated so that if that person so desire, he may make an application to the court for purposes of getting the sample of the article of the food kept by the Local Health Authority, by Central Food Laboratory. This is a valuable right confirmed upon the accused and when this right is denied, this would vitiated the proceedings. In a number of cases it has been held that when a copy of the report of the Public Analyst is not given to the accused, he is deprived of the benefit of sending the sample to the Central Food Laboratory and non-compliance causes prejudice to the accused. State v. Bhag Lal, 1989 Cr.LR (Raj) 643 , State v. Data Ram, 1989 RCC 65 P. Chochalingam and ors. v. Food Inspector Trivendram Corpn & Ors., 1981 2 PFA Cases 201 may be cite in this connection. State v. Bhag Lal, 1989 Cr.LR (Raj) 643 , State v. Data Ram, 1989 RCC 65 P. Chochalingam and ors. v. Food Inspector Trivendram Corpn & Ors., 1981 2 PFA Cases 201 may be cite in this connection. It may be said that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory and the non-compliance's of the same causes prejudice to the accused, who is deprived of his valuable right to get a sample tested by Central Food Laboratory and when this right is denied, the accused cannot be convicted. 7. There is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******