JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—The State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the acquittal of the respondent, Gurdev Singh of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (for short the Act) as recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh vide judgment dated 18-9-1993 in case No, 89/3 of 1991. 2. According to the prosecution story, the Food Inspector Shri M.L. Pathak on 8-5-1991 purchased 750 Ml. of cows milk as sample from the respondent for the purpose of analysis out of about 13 Kgs. of such milk being carried by the respondent for sale to the general public. The sample so purchased was divided into three equal parts in three neat, clean and dry bottles and after adding preservative to such bottles the same were labelled, fastened and sealed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. One of the sealed bottle containing the sample was sent to Public Analyst, Chandigarh, for the purpose of analysis. Upon analysis the sample was found to be adulterated since the same was deficient in milk fats by 31% and in milk solids not fat by 45% of the minimum prescribed standard. 3. After obtaining the requisite written consent from the competent authority, the Food Inspector launched the necessary complaint for the prosecution of the respondent for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the material placed before him, acquitted the respondent of the offence on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the material placed before him, acquitted the respondent of the offence on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. Section 13(2) of the Act provides : - "(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 the institution of prosecution against the person 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 fo 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. It is well settled that the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature. 6. In order to prove the compliance of the requirement under Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Shri K.C Verma, who at the relevant time was working as dealing-Assistant in the office to the Local Health Authority, Solan. He has deposed that intimation of prosecution having been launched along with a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the respondent vide Ext. PW 1/A under registered cover. Ext. PW. 1/B is the postal receipt. 7. The learned Magistrate has held that the addresses of the respondent mentioned in the postal receipt is incomplete inasmuch as the name of the post office of the respondent has not been mentioned therein. Admittedly, the registered envelope sent vide Ext. PW 1/B was not received back undelivered. A perusal of the address mentioned in Ext. PW 1/B shows that it is the same address which is mentioned in the complaint as well as in the present address as being the address of the respondent. Admittedly, the registered envelope sent vide Ext. PW 1/B was not received back undelivered. A perusal of the address mentioned in Ext. PW 1/B shows that it is the same address which is mentioned in the complaint as well as in the present address as being the address of the respondent. There is no denying that respondent was served during the trial before the learned Magistrate as well as during the course of the present appeal on such address. Therefore, the address mentioned in Ext. PW. 1/B cannot be said to be an incomplete address. 8. Since the address mentioned in Ext. PW 1/B is correct and in view of the fact that the registered envelope sent was never delivered back to the sender by the postal authorities, the only presumption under the law is that the same was delivered to and received by the addressee named therein, that is, the respondent. To this extent the findings of the learned Magistrate are wrong and cannot be maintained. 9. Ext. PW. 1/A is the copy of the notice alleged to have been sent to the respondent under registered cover vide Ext. PW 1/B. A perusal of the same shows that the name of the person to whom it is purported to have been addressed is recorded as "Gurdyal Singh". Such name has then been scored off and substituted by the name of the respondent as "Gurdev Singh". 10. It is neither in the statement of PW 1 nor there is any other evidence to show as to in whose handwriting Ext. PW 1/A was prepared. Who scored off the initiall name of the addressee recorded as "Gurdyal Singh" and when ? Whether similar correction/substitution of name of the address was also made In the original notice sent to the respondent ? Under whose signatures notice Ext, PW 1/A was sent ? All these questions have remained unanswered. PW 1 is silent on ail these aspects. Similarly, PW 2 Food Inspector also has not stated even a single word in this regard. 11. In the absence of requisite evidence, the only inference which can be drawn is that a notice addressed to "Gurdyal Singh" under Section 13(2) of the Act appears to have been sent to the respondent under registered cover vide Ext. Similarly, PW 2 Food Inspector also has not stated even a single word in this regard. 11. In the absence of requisite evidence, the only inference which can be drawn is that a notice addressed to "Gurdyal Singh" under Section 13(2) of the Act appears to have been sent to the respondent under registered cover vide Ext. PW 1/B and sending of such a notice cannot be treated as compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act. 12. In view of the non complinace of the requirement of Section 13(2) of the Act, the respondent stands rightly acquitted of the offence charged against him, Such acquittal does not warrant any interference in this appeal. As a result, the present appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent shall stand cancelled and discharged. Appeal dismissed.