JUDGMENT D.P. Sood, J.—Both the above said appeals, registered as Criminal Appeal 440 of 1988 and Criminal Appeal 486 of 1988, arise out of a common order and are based on common facts. I, therefore, propose to decide both these appeals by a common judgment. 2. The State of H.P. has assailed the judgment dated May 31, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba in the above said two criminal appeals, reversing the judgment dated July I, 1986 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba District, and directing the acquittal of the accused persons, two in number. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under : 3. Partap Singh is the owner of the shop under the name and style of "Partap Tea Stall". He is related to Satnam Singh, as the latters maternal uncle. The perusal of the record discloses that Partap Singh aforesaid was the victim of 1984 riots His shop was destroyed by the mob after the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister. He closed his shop but opened it at the behest of the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate uptil December 21, 1984 and thereafter he left for Amritsar alongwith his family members, excepting his mother. He remained engaged in the treatment of his wife at Amritsar till his return to Chamba in March 1985. The keys of the shop remained with his mother, 4. On January 23, 1985, Shri Jagat Ram, Food Inspector (PW 1) visited the shop of Partap Singh at Sapri Bazar, Chamba and found Satnam Singh respondent selling tea. About 40 kgs, of milk was also lying in two containers. PW 1, after expressing his intention to lift the sample of milk for the purpose of analysis, issued notice (Ex. PA) to Satnam Singh in the presence of Shakshi Pal (PW 3). The milk contained in two containers was stirred and 660 mis, against payment of Rs. 1.85 vide receipt (Ex. PB) signed by Satnam Singh and Shakshi Pal, was duly purchased. PA) to Satnam Singh in the presence of Shakshi Pal (PW 3). The milk contained in two containers was stirred and 660 mis, against payment of Rs. 1.85 vide receipt (Ex. PB) signed by Satnam Singh and Shakshi Pal, was duly purchased. After observing codal formalities of cleaning three bottles, drying up, adding formaline drops, closing the same with stoppers, lebelling, wrapping the same in Khakhi paper and sealing the same, one of the sample milk bottle was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat by a registered parcel alongwith Form VII The other samples were kept in the office of Local Health Authority at Chamba in safe custody in accordance with the rules, The Public Analyst caused the sample to be analysed and found percentage of milk-fat deficient by 36% and that of milk-solids-not-fat deficient by 11% than the minimum prescribed standard In other words, as per the report dated February 28, 1 85 (Ex. PE), the milk sample was found to be adulterated. Notice as envisaged under section 13 was sent to Partap Singh on his address of Chamba through Satnam Singh. Thereafter, he filed the complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called as the Act), who after holding trial, convicted both the accused vide his order dated July 1, 1986, which was appealed against and the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and recorded the acquittal of both the respondents. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the State has challenged the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court through the instant appeals, two in number. 5. Mr. H.L. Karwa, learned Assistant Advocate General, has vehemently attempted to convince this Court that the circumstances appearing from the record reveal close relationship in between the respondents Partap Singh and Satnam Singh, and the carrying on of the business on the relevant date and time by Satnam Singh respondent for and on behalf of his co-accused—Partap Singh. He points out that the factum of the shop in question having been opened on the relevant date, time and place, coupled with the sale of tea and large quantity of milk i.e 40 kgs. He points out that the factum of the shop in question having been opened on the relevant date, time and place, coupled with the sale of tea and large quantity of milk i.e 40 kgs. lying there in the shop in two containers, indicates that Satnam Singh aforesaid, was carrying on the business at the behest of his maternal uncle Partap Singh. Learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently emphasises that Satnam Singh, respondent, could not have opened the shop nor he was competent to carry on the business except at the behest of his co-accused Partap Singh with his knowledge or consent. He has taken support from the provisions of sections 7 and 16 of the Act to show that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for the conviction of both the respondents and in that respect the trial Court had correctly appreciated the same. On the above said submissions, he states that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court calls for interference. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution to my mind, the learned lower Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence in recording the acquittal of both the accused and the impugned judgment is liable to be upheld as a sequal thereto. 7. Firstly, taking up the case of Satnam Singh, respondent. His relationship with Partap Singh accused and the factum of the shop having been opened on the relevant date, time and place is not disputed Further fact that 40 kgs. of milk was also lying in two containers at the material time, is also not disputed. However, how, in what circumstances and under whose authority Satnam Singh respondent opened the shop or continued to sell tea or carried on the business, is not decipherable from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In fact, it is lacking inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to show that Partap Singh, the owner of the shop in question had authorised his nephew to continue and carry on the business for and on his behalf. There is no dispute that Satnam Singh aforesaid is neither the owner nor servant of Partap Singh. Further, there is also no evidence that he was served with notice under section 13 (2) of the Act. There is no dispute that Satnam Singh aforesaid is neither the owner nor servant of Partap Singh. Further, there is also no evidence that he was served with notice under section 13 (2) of the Act. Even otherwise, what to talk of direct evidence, there is not even an iota of circumstantial evidence that after the departure of Partap Singh from Chamba in December 1984, the aforesaid shop was continuously being opened by said Satnam Singh and business was being carried on by him. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the key of the shop was with the mother of Partap Singh aforesaid. Also, PW 1 Jagat Ram, Food Inspector has not stated in his testimony that shop was remained opened continuously after the departure of said Partap Singh. Rather, he showed his ignorance in this respect in his cross-examination. The other eye-witness, PW 3, Shakshi Pal is also a shop-keeper. He also does not state the existence of the aforesaid facts. Rather, according to him, he saw Satnam Singh on the shop of Partap Singh only on that day. There is no denial of the fact that respondent Partap Singh, the owner, had left alongwith his family members to Amritsar in December 1984 and sample in question was lifted on 23rd January, 1985. What was the state of affairs in between this period, whether shop remained closed or opened and if in the latter state, by whom and who carried on the business, remains unproved. The learned lower Appellate Court was absolutely right in taking into consideration the well settled law that even if the accused had nothing to do with the ownership of the shop and if he in fact sold the article of food to the Food Inspector for the purpose of analysis, then it would amount to sale of the article in question which attracts the provisions of the Act. The prohibition under section 7 of the Act regarding the sale of adulterated food articles equally applies to all persons. Thus, it has rightly been held by the lower Appellate Court that Satnam Singh, respondent, though had no connection with the shop nor he was working as servant of Partap Singh, he was liable for the consequences of the sale of adulterated article of food in question. 8. Thus, it has rightly been held by the lower Appellate Court that Satnam Singh, respondent, though had no connection with the shop nor he was working as servant of Partap Singh, he was liable for the consequences of the sale of adulterated article of food in question. 8. As regards the non-service of notice under section 13 (2) of the Act, suffice it to state that this provision is of mandatory nature. Admittedly, notice had been sent to Partap Singh only, i.e. notice Ex. PW 2/A vide postal receipt Ex. PW 2/B was only sent to Partap Singh, on the address as "owner of Partap Tea Stall C/o Satnam Singh, Sapri Bazar, Chamba". In the first instance, this Tea Stall is located at Sapri Bazar. Secondly, owner thereof is Partap Singh. Thus, as per address of the notice, the same could not have been meant for Satnam Singh-respondent. At the same time, it cannot be said that receipt of said notice by Satnam Singh respondent even, would lead to inference that he was served with the notice in accordance with law. In a criminal case, knowledge cannot be assumed or criminal liability cannot be fastened on conjectures The onus of proof heavily lies upon the prosecution to prove this fact. In the circumstances, the lower Appellate Court was absolutely right in holding that no such notice was served as is envisaged under section 13 (2) of the Act. 9. Our own High Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Shri Loki Nand, 1984 FAJ 299, has held that non-compliance of the provision will render prejudice to the vendor accused. However, the case is different where there is substantial though not a strict compliance of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act. I have already observed that section 13 (2) of the Act is of mandatory nature. Non-compliance thereof, if prejudices the defence, would vitiate the trial. The intention underlying this provision is to secure the accused/vendor, the right to have the second opinion regarding the food article sold to the Food Inspector from the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It is designed to enable the accused-vendor to exercise his right within the stipulated period of 10 days. Non-compliance thereof, if prejudices the defence, would vitiate the trial. The intention underlying this provision is to secure the accused/vendor, the right to have the second opinion regarding the food article sold to the Food Inspector from the Director, Central Food Laboratory. It is designed to enable the accused-vendor to exercise his right within the stipulated period of 10 days. Rule 9-A of the Act as amended in 1977, provides that the Local Health Authority shall, immediately after the institution of the prosecution, forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate, to the person from whom sample of article of food was taken by the Food Inspector. It has been held by the apex Court that total non-compliance of this provision vitiates the trial as it takes away a valuable right of the accused to have the sample analysed from the Central Food Laboratory. Lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the observations of the apex Court so made in the case of Tulsi Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 299. 10. Viewing the entire facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that lower Appellate Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence, vis-a-vis Satnam Singh-respondent. 11. As regards Partap Singh, respondent, suffice it to state that a sample was lifted from Satnam Singh, his co-accused, in his absence, though from his shop located at Chamba. It is also worth noting that at the material time, Partap Singh was at Amritsar alongwith his family and he was involved in the treatment of his wife, he having closed his shop about a month prior to the date when the sample was lifted. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that he had either authorised Satnam Singh to carry on the business or, consented to or connived at the conducting of the business by Satnam Singh in his absence in the shop owned and possessed by him. As observed above, the prosecution evidence shows that the keys of the shop had been left with his mother by respondent Partap Singh How Satnam Singh procured the keys and at whose instance, is also not decipherable. As observed above, the prosecution evidence shows that the keys of the shop had been left with his mother by respondent Partap Singh How Satnam Singh procured the keys and at whose instance, is also not decipherable. Apart from it, there is no evidence on record to show as to whether the notice under section 13 (2) of the Act ever reached said Partap Singh-respondent or not. All these circumstances have rightly been considered by the learned lower Appellate Court. 12 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the evidence led by the prosecution, has been appreciated in its right perspective and the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court do not call for any interference. Resultantly, both appeals are ordered to be dismissed and stand disposed of in terms of the above. Appeals dismissed.