JUDGMENT Ramdayal Patel was prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under section 7 read with 18(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954. The trial Court recorded acquittal vide judgment and order dated 23.11.1987 in Case No. 94/85 so registered. Against this acquittal the present appeal is directed by the State. Heard the learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent, Shri P.N. Pathak. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that non-compliance of requirement of section 13(2) of the Act will not affect the prosecution case as in the present case, as required under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act, the report of the Public Analyst with the article of food as taken from the accused was found adulterated and was forwarded to him in the manner prescribed under Rule 9B of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 9B requires for forwarding a copy of the report and the result of analysis in Form-3 to the concerned person by registered post or by hand, as may be appropriate. According to him, in the present case, it was sent by registered post and, therefore, it should be taken as sufficient compliance of the law. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it cannot be sufficient compliance under section 13(2) of the Act, and rule 9B of the said Rules, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the report was also forwarded or delivered by hand. The case is that it was sent by registered post and evidence on the record has established that the registered letter so sent returned back undelivered. The presumption regarding delivery of letter is provided under the General Clauses Act as section 80 of the Evidence Act deals with the presumption of telegram. Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is as follows : "27. The presumption regarding delivery of letter is provided under the General Clauses Act as section 80 of the Evidence Act deals with the presumption of telegram. Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 is as follows : "27. Meaning of service by post -- Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression ''serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, un less a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." The purpose behind requirement for sending the report by registered post, under the Rule is if the letter is sent by registered post, it would be deemed to have been delivered, only when the registered letter is not returned back. In the present case, registered letter so sent returned back and there is no material thereafter it was sent by registered post and the registered post did not return back or the report was delivered by hand. In view of the above, it is the case where no compliance of the rule has been done and in view of this, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond and surety bond are discharged.