P. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal Appeal filed by Nagar Swasthya Adhikari (N. S. A.), Nagar Mahapalika, Agra against the judgment and order dated 30. 8. 1977 passed by Sri A. U. Khan, Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in criminal case No. 2507 of 1977, acquitting the accused-appellant Chunni Lal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to be as the Act ). Brief facts of the case are that on 16. 6. 1974, at about 8 P. M. Sri Virendra Prakash Sharma, the Chief Sanitary Inspector-cum-Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra visited the shop of the accused situated at Meerza Hussaini Crossing Nai Ki Mandi, within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Agra and purchased 660 mililiter cow milk on payment of demanded price. He divided the purchased sample in three equal parts and sealed each of the three phials of the sample. One of the phials was given to the accused, the second was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained in the office of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari (N. S. A. ). The Public Analyst by his report dated 23rd July, 1974 found the sample of milk deficient in fact content by about 14% and in nonfatty solid content by about 16%. Thus the sample was adjudged as adulterated on the basis of the statutory standards for cow milk. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute, a complaint against the accused was filed in the court of Magistrate I Class, Agra. The accused Chunni Lal did not plead guilty to the charge and alleged that no sample was purchased from him. According to him, he had falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity with the Food Inspector Sri C. B. Gupta. ( 2 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined Sri V. P. Sharma, Chief Sanitary-Cum-Food Inspector, P. W. 2 Sri. C. B. Gupta, Food Inspector and Raghubir Singh, Food Clerk, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. The accused also examined one Chiragh-Uddin Quraishi, Advocate, collectorate, Agra. ( 3 ) ON an assessment of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate held that the charge against the appellant was not proved. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 7/16 of the Act. The accused also examined one Chiragh-Uddin Quraishi, Advocate, collectorate, Agra. ( 3 ) ON an assessment of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate held that the charge against the appellant was not proved. Accordingly, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 7/16 of the Act. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and order the N. S. A. , Agra has come up in appeal before this Court. ( 5 ) ON perusal of the record, I find that a serious illegality has been committed by the prosecution in the case by not following the mandatory provisions contained under section 13 of the Act. Section 13 (2) of the Act provides that the Public Analyst will deliver the report to the Local (Health) Authority. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority, shall after institution of the prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the article of food was taken, whose name and address and other particulars have been disclosed by the vendor, forward a copy of the report of the Analyst to the vendor informing him that he may, if it is so desired, make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of such report, to get another sample of the article of food kept by the Local (Health) Authority, analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. ( 6 ) THUS, under sub-section (2) of the section, the accused has been given a valuable right to apply to the court to have the sample taken from him, analyzed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. If this right IS prejudiced in any way by the carelessness or negligence of the prosecution, the report of the Public Analyst cannot be relied upon and the accused convicted on the basis of the report. The provisions of sub-section (2) are mandatory and a violation thereof which has the effect of depriving the accused of the valiable right given to him thereby, will entitle the accused to be acquitted. ( 7 ) IN this case, I found that compliance of this mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of the Section has not been. made. The provisions of sub-section (2) are mandatory and a violation thereof which has the effect of depriving the accused of the valiable right given to him thereby, will entitle the accused to be acquitted. ( 7 ) IN this case, I found that compliance of this mandatory provision of sub-section (2) of the Section has not been. made. None of the three witnesses examined by the prosecution have stated that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the accused informing him that if it is so desired, he may make an application to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report to get the sample kept by the Local (Health) Authority analyzed by the Central Food Laboratory. There are also no documents on record to indicate that the report of the Public Analyst and the desired information were sent to the appellant. The prosecution has thus failed to prove the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. That being so, the valuable right of the appellant is prejudiced and so the report of the Public Analyst cannot be relied upon and the appellant can also not be convicted on the basis of that report. The appellant has, therefore, rightly been acquitted. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons given above the appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .