JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The respondent Dharam Singh upon having been tried for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, stands acquitted of the said offence vide the impugned judgment dated 7-1-1991. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these On 27-4-1988 Food Inspectors Shri S.N. Sharma visited the shop of the respondent at Alige Mount Building, Jakhu when the respondent was found having four kilograms of cows milk contained in a tin for sale to the general public The Food Inspector after disclosing his identity and expressing the desire to purchase the milk for the purpose of analysis, purchased 7.0 mils, of cows milk from the respondent on payment of Rs. 4. 50 P, vide receipt Ext PB in the presence of S/Shri Karam Chand and Sham Lal. The sample of milk so purchased was divided into three equal parts in three neat, dry and clean bottles and after adding formaline as preservative thereto, said bottles were properly labelled, fastened, wrapped, corked and sealed. One of the bottle containing the sample was sent to the Public Analyst and the same was found to be adulterated for being deficient in milk fats by 28.5% and milk solid not fats by 42% After obtaining the requisite written sanction for prosecution of the respondent, the necessary complaint for the prosecution of the respondent for the offence under section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was made before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upon consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that there was a non-compliance of the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Act and chat the milk was not proved to have been made homogeneous before taking the sample The learned Magistrate, accordingly, vide the impugned judgment acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him, as aforesaid. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal before this Court after obtaining the requisite leave, assailing- the acquittal of the respondent of the offence charged against him, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal before this Court after obtaining the requisite leave, assailing- the acquittal of the respondent of the offence charged against him, I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Section 13 (2) of the Act, provides r— "13 (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated the Local (Health) Authority shall, after institution of prosecution against persons 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.” 5. Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 also provides in the following terms :- "The Local (Health) Authority shall (within a period of ten days) after the institution of prosecution forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis in Form III delivered to him under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, by registered post or by hand, and may be appropriate,, to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector and simultaneously also to the person, if any, whose mine, address and other particulars has been disclosed under section 14-A of the Act," Ext, PW 1/C is the registered A.D cover under which the copy of the report of the Public Analyst is purported to have been forwarded to the respondent in terms of the section 13 (2) of the Act, A perusal of the same shows that the registered envelop was received back by the Local Health Authority unserved with the report that the addressee has left the service without address The endorsement in the land of the postman on Exts, PW 1/C is under the date line of 23-9-1988. No efforts thereafter appear to have been made on behalf of the Local Health Authority to find out the address of the respondent and to forward to him the copy of the report of the Public Analyst, 6. In Ram Swamp v State of H.P., 1989 SLJ 91, the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded to the accused therein The registered letter so sent was not received back as unserved nor the acknowledgement due was received back to show that the registered letter was duly received by the accused therein The prosecution placed on the record the postal receipt evidencing the despatch of the registered letter to the respondent. Such postal receipt did not contain the complete address of the addressee. The only the name of the town besides the name of the addressee was mentioned. On these facts, the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the registered letter containing the report of the Public Analyst was in fact sent to the accused therein on correct address. It was further held that the expression forward used in section 13 (2) of the Act. On these facts, the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the registered letter containing the report of the Public Analyst was in fact sent to the accused therein on correct address. It was further held that the expression forward used in section 13 (2) of the Act. read with Rule 9-A of the Rules means “to send” and that in view of the provisions contained in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 whenever the expression send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service is deemed to have been effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post a letter containing the document, 7. In the present case, as stated, above, the registered letter containing the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was received back by the Local Health Authority unserved with the report that the addressee had left without address This in no terms can be said to be the compliance of section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules It was incumbent upon the Local Health Authority to have found out the correct address of the respondent and to forward a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to him on such address The learned trial Court therefore, has rightly come to the conclusion that there has been non-compliance of the provisions contained in section 13 f2i of the Act, and, therefore, the respondent was entitled to acquittal only on that ground. 8. Besides, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the milk from which the sample was purchased from the respondent was never made homogeneous by the Food Inspector before actually taking the sample The evidence coming on the record in the form of the statement of the Food Inspector as PW 2 and the independent witness PW 3 ; Karam Chand is self-contradictory While according to Food Inspector, the sample was purchased from the milk contained in a tin, on the other hand, PW 3 has stated that the milk from which the sample was taken, was boiled milk and was contained in a "Patila”. He had further gone to state that the sample purchased and taken from the “Patila" was firstly poured in a jug and thereafter divided in three neat, clean and dry bottles. In view of the contradictory evidence coming on the record, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the milk was not made homogeneous before taking of the sample by the Food Inspector and that the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove that milk was made homogeneous, casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the evidence coming on the record, has rightly acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in this appeal Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed Appeal dismissed.