JUDGMENT 1. -This is an appeal Under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.PC. against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, Rajasthan dated 18.6.82 whereby the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appellants' criminal appeals Nos. 8/81 & 11/81 against their convictions and sentence for the offence Under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the Act). 2. The learned Sessions Judge had acquitted Laxman Das, Respondent No.1, Who was the seller of the article of food "paan ka masala", on the Ground that he was deprived of his valuable right Under section 13(2) of the Act in as much as the Food Inspector had not sent any notice to him, informing him that the food article, purchased from him had been found adulterated by the Public Analyst and that the prosecution in that behalf had already been launched against him in the court. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Shankar Lal, Respondent No.2, who is the manufacturer of the said food article, on the ground that no sanction Under section 20 of the Act had been obtained before filing the prosecution against that respondent. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor rightly urged that in view of the specific provisions, contained in Section 20-A of the Act no written consent of the prescribed authority Under section 20 was required for prosecution of respondent No.2. The provisions contained in Section 20-A of the Act are clear and admit of no ambiguity. The learned counsel for the respondents was fair enough to concede this point. However, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor to the another point regarding non-compliance of the mandatory provisions Under section 13(2) of the Act in this case has no merits, it is an undisputed fact that after the receipt of the report of the Public Analyst in this case and after filing the complaint in the court, the Food Inspector had not sent the copy of the report of the result of the analysis to either of the respondents in order to enable them to make an applidation to the court within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the report from the Food Inspector to get the sample of the article of food, kept by the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Director Central Food Laboratory. 4. 4. I very minutely scrutinised various memos, prepared by the Food Inspector and also his statement, as recorded at the trial. I am satisfied that the Food Inspector had not complied with the mandate, contained in sub-Sec.(2) of Section 3 of the Act by sending the copy of the result of the analysis to either of the respondents. It needs hardly any stress that the provisions of Section 13(2) confer a very valuable right upon the accused and accordingly a very onerous statutory duty upon the Food Inspector to send the copy of the report of the result of the analysis to the accused, if the Food Inspector does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act, the accused is deprived of the exercise of his right to get the sample of the article of Food, kept by the Local Health Authority, analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Since in the present case the provisions contained in Section 13(2) of the Act were not admittedly complied with by the Food Inspector, the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence of both the respondents. 5. In view of the above. I find no force in this appeal and dismissed it accordingly.No force in appeal. Appeal dismissed. *******