Judgment SURINDER SARUP, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 16 (i) a(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the court of Sri N. C. Gupta, Subdivisional Judscial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, by his order dated 4th June, 1987, in G/4/84/T.R. 147/87, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment six months as well as a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 2. His appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 105/87, against the said conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court has also been dismissed by by the court of Sri Uma Shanker, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh by his order, dated 29th August, 1988, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence. 3. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that sample of Haldi i. e. turmeric powder was found to be adulterated on analysis and the evidence in this case consists of the statement of Sri Mallick, Food Inspector, Hazaribagh who appeared as PW 1 at the trial and Jaimudin, PW 2, in whose presence the sample is alleged to have been taken. According to the statement of PW 2, the report of the public analyst was sent to the petitioner under certificate of posting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this procedure adopted by the Food inspector is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 13(2) of the Act as well as the Rule 9-A of the Rules made thereunder, according to which the report of the public analyst has to be sent either by registered post or by hand. In support of his contention, he has cited L. M. Batra V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in (1995) 1 BLJR 70 . This reported case on all forces in support of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been held therein as follows: "The requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act have been held to be mandatory, and the accused has got a valuable right to get the sample analysed by the Central Laboratory as the report of the local authorities is not sacrosant and may contain error. Mere forwarding the report to the accused cannot be said to be substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act. Mere forwarding the report to the accused cannot be said to be substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act. There is no dearth of authorities which say that under the amended Section 13(2) valuable right is given to the accused of receiving notice from local health authorities giving a copy of the report of the Public Analyst and also telling him that if he so desired he may get the same analysed by the Central Food Laboratory by making an application to the Court. Noncompliance of this provision vitiates the entire proceeding. "The courts went to the extent of saying that the provision of sending the copy of the Public Ananlysts report to the accused by registered post is also mandatory." On this ground alone, the conviction of the petitioner is vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain other legal points also, but it is not necessary to deal with them, in view of the first submission made by him and discussed hereinabove. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner by the two courts below are set aside. The petitioner has been on bail during the pendency of this petition, his bail and surety bonds are discharged.