JUDGMENT This is an appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat in criminal case No. 1576/81. The respondent was found selling adulterated milk by the Food Inspector, K.N. Tiwari PW 3 on 11.9.81 who took the sample of the adulterated milk for public analysis by giving a notice to the respondent. He after observing the formalities of sample and sealing sent a sample to the public analyst, Bhopal who after chemical examination reported that the sample did not conform to the standard of puriety as laid down under the rules vide his report Ex. P. 12. A copy of the report of the public analyst, was sent to the respondent vide Ex. P.13 under registered post, but neither postal receipt nor acknowledgment receipt was brought on, the record by the prosecution. The trial Court after consideration of the evidence, acquitted the respondent of the offence. As against that, Food Inspector has preferred this appeal. Shri G.R. Ahuliwalia learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondent has been wrongly acquitted by the trial Court. The prosecution has led evidence of Chitranjan Singh PW 4 that a copy of the report of the public analyst was sent to the respondent under registered post. On perusal of the evidence available on the record, it however appears, that the prosecution has not brought either the postal receipt or the acknowledgement receipt of the notice of the public analyst report, which was sent to the respondent. The compliance of the provision of sub section (2) of S. 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 of the Act with regard to the service of notice of the public analyst has not been proved by the prosecution in the instant case. Sub section (2) of S. 13 of the Food Adulteration Act is mandatory provision of law and the non-compliance thereof vitiates the proceedings. On careful consideration of the evidence available on the record, I do not find any infirmity in the acquittal of the respondent. There is no merit in the appeal, accordingly it is dismissed.