JUDGMENT P.P. Gupta, J. - This is a criminal Appeal filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, against the judgment and order dated 3.4.1978 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1978, allowing the appeal and was acquitting the accused Tajuddin under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.9.1975, at about 11.00 A.M. the Food Inspector, M.D. Misra, found the accused Tajuddin selling milk in Mohalla Madhwapurand took sample from him after purchasing 6.60 ml. of milk. It was divided and sealed in three phials. After completing the formalities, one of such phial was sent to the Public Analyst, the other was given to the accused and the third was retained. The Public Analyst, by his report dated 10.10.1975, found the sample deficient in fat contents by about 20% (Percent) and deficient in non-fatty solids by about 28%. The sample was judged on the basis of the statutory standards for buffalo milk. In the opinion of the Public Analyst, the sample was adulterated. A complaint against the accused was filed by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari himself. 3. The accused aimed the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of his case the prosecution examined N.D. Misra, Food Inspector (P.W. 1), and Sri. S.C. Srivastava Food Clerk (P.W. 2). The accused also examined Mohd. Ansar (D.W.1). 4. After assessing the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him by the order dated 19.11.1977. The accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. The appeal was allowed and his conviction was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 3.4.1978. 5. It is against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge that the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari has come up in appeal before this Court. 6. Learned A.G.A. was heard on behalf of the state and the record of the case was also perused. 7. In this case the accused has been prejudiced for two reasons. Firstly, no proper charge was framed and secondly, the mandatory provision contained under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not complied with. 7. In this case the accused has been prejudiced for two reasons. Firstly, no proper charge was framed and secondly, the mandatory provision contained under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not complied with. It is mentioned in the charge framed by the learned Magistrate on 28.5.1977 that the accused had, on 18.9.1975 at about 11.00 A.M. collected milk for sale in Mohalla Madhwapur and sold 6.60 m.l. of milk to the Food Inspector and thereby committed an offence under Section 7.16 of the Act. There is no mention in it that the sample taken by the Food Inspector was found adulterated. As such, the accused was definitely prejudiced, inasmuch as that he did not know the nature of the case which he was to meet. On account of this prejudice, the trial of the accused stands vitiated. It is mandatory under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act that on receipt of the report of the result of the analysis, the local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against he 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 14-A forward, in such manner as may be prescribed, a copy of the report of the result of the analysis to such person or persons, as the case may be, informing such person or persons that if it is so 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 and non-compliance of it vitiate the trial. The accused has denied of having received the report of the Public Analyst. S.C. Srivastava, Food Clerk, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, has filed Acknowledgement Due Card saying that it was the receipt of sending the report of Public Analyst. He has no where stated that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. This Acknowledgement Due Card bears the thumb impression, which is not in full, along with which there is an endorsement that this thumb impression is of one Fireoze Uddin. He has no where stated that the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused. This Acknowledgement Due Card bears the thumb impression, which is not in full, along with which there is an endorsement that this thumb impression is of one Fireoze Uddin. The prosecution has not established Firoze Uddin is connected with the accused Tajuddin. No attempt was made to send the report of the Public Analyst to Tajuddin after the receipt of the A/D Card from which it was known that the report was not served on the accused Tajuddin. Moreover, the copy of the notice informing the accused the name of the Court where the prosecution had been instituted and further informing him that if he so desired he could 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 and analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, was not filed. Thus the mandatory provision under Section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with, as has been said above, it is mandatory provision non-compliance of which vitiates the trial. 8. In view of the above infirmities in the prosecution case the appeal has rightly been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and must be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.