JUDGMENT :. The petitioner is convicted of the offence of misbranding, punishable under section 7 (ii) read with Section 2 (ix) (c) (e), punishable under section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer RI for six months, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, vide his order dated 10.9.1987. 2. The matter was carried in appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dismissed the appeal by order dated 25.11.1997. This order has been impugned in the present Revision. 3. Facts in nutshell are that the petitioner is running a grocery shop by the name and style Mis. Shimla Kirana & General Stores, on Karbala Road at Nanded. Food Inspector Shri. K. G. Batra (PW1) visited his shop on 19.3.1986 for drawing sample of sunflower oil. He purchased 375 gms. of sunflower oil for Rs. 9.25 Ps. Appropriate procedure was followed, in as much as sample of oil was divided into three equal parts each and poured the same in clean, dry and empty bottles, in presence of pancha and the petitioner. The petitioner passed receipt (Exh.l0). All other formalities were completed and panchnama was drawn. Sample was then sent to the Public Analyst. Report of the Public Analyst (Exh.22) was received by the Food Inspector on 13.5.1986, showing that sample was, in fact, of palm oil and not of sunflower oil, Food Inspector, then, obtained sanction and lodged complaint registered as Regular Criminal Case No.3361 1986 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded on 31st October, 1986 and gave intimation to the Local Health Authority. Local Health Authority sent CA report along with forwarding letter intimating the petitioner that if he desires to forward the sample for analysis to the Central Food Laboratory, he should do so within 10 days from receipt of intimation. That letter dated 6.11.1986 sent under registered post, was received back with an endorsement of the postman that the letter could not be delivered as "petitioner was not available at the given address". The envelope is at Exh.34. Therefore, Local Health Authority forwarded this letter to the Food Inspector for onward transmission. 4. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge found that the offence is brought home to the petitioner. The envelope is at Exh.34. Therefore, Local Health Authority forwarded this letter to the Food Inspector for onward transmission. 4. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge found that the offence is brought home to the petitioner. He, therefore, convicted petitioner of having sold misbranded sunflower oil and convicted him, as stated earlier. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nanded, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of conviction and sentence. 5. In the present Revision, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. S.C. Bora has restricted his challenge to the legality of the order passed by the lower courts on the ground of his non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act, read with Rule 9A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules"). 6. Before turning to the contention raised, it would be pertinent to refer to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted and convicted for having misbranded sunflower oil. It has come on record that petitioner was an impressionable young man of 24 years and had recently opened the grocery shop. The Food Inspector visited without disclosing his identity and demanded sunflower oil. According to petitioner, he sold palm oil but he was forced to pass receipt for sunflower oil. In the ordinary course of business, if Food Inspector visits the grocery shop for purchasing food articles, he shall intimate the person that purchase is for the analysis by Public Analyst to ascertain whether the said food article conforms to the standard or not. At the time of visit, if this procedure had been followed it is difficult to envisage that any trader would sell palm oil as sunflower oil to the Food Inspector and thereby invite penalty. However, relying on the receipt passed by the petitioner, the defence of petitioner that, in fact, he had sold palm oil and not the sunflower oil; but was forced to pass receipt f( r sunflower oil is negatived by the Courts below. 7. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the point of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections of Section 13(ii) of the Act read with rule 9A of the Rules. 7. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the point of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections of Section 13(ii) of the Act read with rule 9A of the Rules. Section 13(ii) and Rule 9A which are relevant for our purpose, read as under; "13(ii): On receipt of 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 14A, 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." "9-A: Sending of sample by Local health Authority: (a) Local (Health) Authority shall within a period of seven days of receipt of requisition for second part of the sample from Public Analyst underthe proviso of rule 7 (1), send such sample to the Public Analyst. (b) Local (health) Authority, while sending second part of the sample under the provision of sub-section (2E) of section 13 of the Act, shall do so within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the report from the first public analyst." 8. It is by now well-settled that this provision is mandatory and infraction of which results in causing prejudice to the accused. This is a salutary provision which prevents frivolous litigation. A valuable right is made available to the delinquent. If he is prevented from availing this remedy, the infraction results in causing prejudice to the accused. In this behalf learned counsel for petitioner has right, referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC page 1233 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1371 (S.C.)] in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Gauranga Sahu. If he is prevented from availing this remedy, the infraction results in causing prejudice to the accused. In this behalf learned counsel for petitioner has right, referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC page 1233 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1371 (S.C.)] in the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Gauranga Sahu. In para no.4, it is observed by the Apex Court: "4. It is argued on behalf of the accused that mere despatch of the report is not enough; and that the prosecution is further obliged to prove that the letter so dispatched had reached the addressee i.e. the accused. We agree with this submission, as we believe that forwarding a copy of the report is not only a ritual, but a statutory requirement to be mandatorily observed in all the cases. Despatch of such report is intended to inform the accused of his valuable right to get the other sample analyzed from the Central Food Laboratory." 9. It is, thus, clear that mere showing the despatch of report of the Public Analyst is not sufficient. It has to be proved that the report has been received by the accused. In the present case the point was raised before the trial Court as well as lower Appellate Court. Dr. (Smt) Shanta Gaikwad (PW 3) who was a Local Health Authority, has testified that on 6.11.1986 in-charge Dr. Naladkar had informed the accused about the case while in the Court. However this letter was received unserved. The letter produced was in envelope at Exh.34. The evidence of Local Health Authority shows that the letter was extracted from the envelope and was sent to the Food Inspector for being served on the petitioner. This is made clear by forwarding letter dated 19.11.1986 (Exh.35). Admittedly, the prosecution has not proved the receipt of the P.A. report by the petitioner. The Food Inspector has resorted to jugglery in his evidence, by saying that the complainant was in the Court on 31st October, 1986 and, on the same day, letter was written to the LHA for forwarding PA report to the accused. He produced office copy of the letter which is forwarded to him by the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector proceeds to testify that on receipt of the letter of the LHA, he sent copy of PA report to the accused and gave him intimation. He produced office copy of the letter which is forwarded to him by the Public Analyst. The Food Inspector proceeds to testify that on receipt of the letter of the LHA, he sent copy of PA report to the accused and gave him intimation. That intimation is placed on record at Exh.26. In fact, this is not an intimation regarding service but it is merely copy of the letter which was unserved envelope which was forwarded to the Food Inspector. The Food Inspector has not made any reference to communication dated 19.11.1986 by which he was informed that earlier letter was not served on the petitioner. Therefore he should make arrangement to gave that letter to the petitioner. This anomaly has not been considered by both the Courts below. Merely on the basis of the evidence of Food Inspector that he had received intimation that the copy is served on the accused, a conclusion is drawn that there is proper service and the petitioner had received the P A Report. Referring to the evidence of L.H.A. trial Court observed that because address was correct and that the postman had gone to the shop of petitioner, it is clear that he avoided the service and, therefore, presumption is drawn that it is proper service. To say the least, the conclusion is highly objectionable and is in sheer breach of norms of appreciation of evidence, as such, the conclusion cannot be accepted. The material on record demonstrates that PA report was not made available to the petitioner, which has resulted in infraction of Section 13(ii) of the Act and Rule 9A of the Rules. 10. Learned APP Shrimati R.D. Reddy has vehemently argued that the petitioner had adopted a defence that he sold palm oil. P A report shows that the sample was of palm oil and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Same line of reasoning is towed by both Courts below. However, we have already adverted to the facts and the defence adopted. Be that, as it may; learned counsel for petitioner has rightly argued that there cannot be prejudging of facts at the stage of giving intimation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not permissible to take into consideration the subsequent developments. However, we have already adverted to the facts and the defence adopted. Be that, as it may; learned counsel for petitioner has rightly argued that there cannot be prejudging of facts at the stage of giving intimation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not permissible to take into consideration the subsequent developments. It is now well settled that if a statute provides that particular act is required to be done in a particular manner, then that act has to be done in that manner and in that manner alone. 11. In the present case, it is now well established that compliance of Section 13(ii) of the Act, is mandatory; however the mandatory provision has not been complied with. Hence in the peculiar circumstances of this case, contention of learned counsel that prejudice is caused to the petitioner and that no trader will sell palm oil as sunflower oil, deserve to be accepted. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner that infraction of Section 13(ii) of the Act has resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioner in so far as his valuable right of getting sample analysed through Central Food Laboratory is lost, will have to be sustained. It is, therefore, apparent that the orders passed by both the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and deserve to be quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, Revision is allowed, in terms of prayer Clause (B) Rule is made absolute accordingly. Fine, if any, be returned to the petitioner. Bail bonds executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled. Revision allowed.