JUDGMENT ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J.— l have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General and have also gone through the record of the case. The State is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent ordered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (II), Nurpur. By means of impugned judgement passed in Criminal case No. 878/1 of 1988/134/111 of 1991 dated 28-2-1992, respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 27-7-1988. CW-1, Food Inspector, C.B. Sharma was at Nurpur and was checking the milk of the milk vendors. Respondent on checking was found to have come to Nurpur for the sale of milk that he was carrying in the Can. It was tested with Electo-meter and the same was found to be sub-standard. In these circumstances, the said Food Inspector informed the respondent of his intention to take the sample out of the milk being carried by the respondent. In this behalf notice was given to the respondent vide Ext. PW-1/A and on payment of Rs. 2.30, 660 mis. of buffalo milk was purchased by the Food Inspector from the respondent against receipt Ext. PW- 1/B. Act such point of time, respondent was stated to be carrying 28/30 Kgs. of milk. After dividing the milk purchased in three equal parts, the same was put in three separate neat, clean and dry bottles and formaline was added to this milk in each of the bottle as a preservative. Thereafter bottles were packed and sealed as required under law and a memo in this behalf was prepared on the spot vide Ext. PW-1/C. One of the sealed bottle alongwith Form No. VII containing the seal impression also was sent to the Public Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh. In addition to this, separate Form No. VII alongwith seal impression used in sealing the bottle in question was also sent by registered post to the aforesaid Public Analyst at Chandigarh for examination and report. 3. After examination the Public Analyst opined that the sample of the milk was deficient in milk fat by 24.0 per cent and in milk-solid not-fat by 53 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. 3. After examination the Public Analyst opined that the sample of the milk was deficient in milk fat by 24.0 per cent and in milk-solid not-fat by 53 per cent of the minimum prescribed standard. On receipt of this intimation by the Local Health Authority, Kangra at Dharamshala, consent was granted by the Local Health Authority under Section 20 of the Act authorising the Food Inspector to institute prosecution against the respondent for having committed the offence in accordance with law. Intimation was also sent regarding the launching of prosecution as required under section 13 of the Act. In the aforesaid background, complaint was filed against the respondent by the Food Inspector before the trial court, who after perusal of the complaint and other papers accompanying it was satisfied that there are prima facie grounds to proceed against the respondent. As such notice of accusation under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. in order to sustain its case against the respondent, trial court examined three witnesses and placed reliance on a number of documents. Trial court after examining the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has acquitted the respondent for the aforesaid offence, hence this appeal at the instance of the State. 5. In the context of the present case, it may be appropriate to mention here that as per the statement of Food Inspector, respondent, when sample was taken from his can, was in possession of 28/30 Kgs. of milk. In order to ensure that the sample was a representative one, proper stirring of the milk from the Can was required. When a reference is made to the statement of Food Inspector, he has specifically stated that he had stirred the milk with a Kadchhi that too in the Can Itself. It is a matter of common knowledge and in day to day experience, it is seen that the length of the Kadchhi is between 12" to 15". In these circumstances, can it be said that the entire milk in the can had been properly stirred so as to make it a representative sample, answer would be in the negative. Stirring is not a mere formality, but to show that the sample was representative, proper and deep stirring of the milk in the can containing 28/30 Kgs. of milk was required to be made. Stirring is not a mere formality, but to show that the sample was representative, proper and deep stirring of the milk in the can containing 28/30 Kgs. of milk was required to be made. There is no evidence which can be taken to establish that the sample taken was a representative one. 6. Another circumstance to hold that no stirring had, in fact, been done so as to make the sample taken by the Food Inspector a representative one is that there is no mention of stirring having been done by the Food Inspector before drawing the sample either in the complaint or in the Panchnama. Consequently it has to be seen whether there was any stirring at all or not as well as what weight is to be attached to the statement of Food Inspector regarding his having stirred the milk with the help of a Kadchhi. The so-called independent witness Sukhdev (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case on this material aspect, besides other facts as he has stated that he was called upon by the Food Inspector to witness the documents which he did. This witness was declared hostile. However, nothing material could be brought on record so as to dislodge his statement. That being so, this Court is of the view that there was no proper stirring before the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the respondent out of the milk that he was stated to be carrying. 7. Now, another reason for upholding the acquittal is that intimation regarding launching of prosecution was sent by the Local Health Authority and postal receipt having been despatched the report of the Public Analyst alongwith intimation as Ext. PW- 3/B. The address given in this receipt Ext. PW-3/B is Sher Khan, Ghandra. This cannot be said to be the compliance of the requirement of law inasmuch as that it lacks the complete address of the respondent. That being so, it cannot be said that there was compliance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. PW- 3/B. The address given in this receipt Ext. PW-3/B is Sher Khan, Ghandra. This cannot be said to be the compliance of the requirement of law inasmuch as that it lacks the complete address of the respondent. That being so, it cannot be said that there was compliance with the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. In taking this view, I am supported by a judgement of this Court reported in 1989 SLJ 91, Ram Swarup v. State of H.P. In this case, it was held by the learned Judge that when the prosecution placed on record the postal receipt evidencing the despatch of the registered letter to the accused, (respondent in the present case) and such postal receipt did not contain the complete address of the addressee and had only name of the town besides the name of the addressee In those circumstances, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the registered letter containing the report of the Public Analyst was in fact, sent to the respondent therein on his 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. There is nothing on record to raise presumption in favour of delivery of the intimation of launching of prosecution alongwith the report of the Public Analyst as envisaged under Section 13(2) of the Act. Therefore, the respondent had been rightly acquitted by the trial court. 8. Even otherwise as pointed out above, there is no stirring of the milk and there was no foundation laid either in the complaint or in the memos prepared at the time of taking the sample. On the other hand, independent witness has not supported the prosecution case in this behalf as well as on other material aspects of the case. Therefore, on examination of the evidence on record, no fault can be found with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 9. On the other hand, independent witness has not supported the prosecution case in this behalf as well as on other material aspects of the case. Therefore, on examination of the evidence on record, no fault can be found with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 9. When faced with the aforesaid discrepancies in the prosecution case, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that the aforesaid discrepancies are minor and for that reason, the case of the prosecution has been wrongly thrown out by the trial Court. According to him, the statement of Food Inspector is enough to convict and sentence the respondent and on this basis he has urged for reversal of the judgement in question. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected without being sustainable on the evidence produced by the prosecution. 10. The view taken by the trial court while acquitting the respondent of the aforesaid offence prima facie appears to be reasonable and balanced on proper consideration of evidence as well as by correct application of law to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.