Judgment :- 1. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Accused in S.T.C. No.3146 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore and they were convicted for the offence under Sections 16(1)(a) and (ii) r/w 7(1) and Section 2(ia) and (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced each to undergo three months’ Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo one week’ Simple Imprisonment. The said conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Coimbatore in C.A.No.536 of 2007. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Petitioners/Accused preferred this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 25.03.2006, at about 5.15 p.m., P.W.1, Food Inspector went to the Restaurant at 257, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, of which the Second Accused is the owner. The First Accused was looking after the business. P.W.1 in order to take samples of chilly gobi paid Rs.135/- and purchased it. The purchased chilly gobi was sealed which was sent for chemical analysis. After Chemical Analysis Report, the chilly gobi was found to be adulterated, sine it contained the added colouring matter “Sunset Yellow and Carmoisine” violating Rule 29 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the Revision Petitioners guilty. 3. Mr.K.S. Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the Revision Petitioners as required under Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Devakakonda Ramesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through Food Inspector, Adilabad, 2003 (1) FAC 245. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 13(2) notice was sent by P.W.1 to the Accused within the time, but the Accused refused to receive it and a such, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was not violated. 5. This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is as follows: “13. Report of public analyst.-(1)…….. 5. This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is as follows: “13. Report of public analyst.-(1)…….. (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 persons 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, 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.” It is held in the decision cited supra as follows: “7. The next point that is urged by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner – Accused is that the report of the public analyst was not supplied to him as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. Even though such an objection was not raised before the Trial Court, it can be raised at any point of time. As seen from the records it is noticed that the public analyst report was sent by registered post to the address mentioned in the mediators report at the time of taking sample. But the registered cover was returned unserved. The report was not served as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. Mere service by registered post is not sufficient service. Further, the cover was returned unserved. No steps were taken by the prosecution to serve the said notice. For the above said reasons, the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act and on this ground also prejudice was caused to the Accused and hence the trial is vitiated. 8. Further, the cover was returned unserved. No steps were taken by the prosecution to serve the said notice. For the above said reasons, the prosecution failed to follow the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 13(2) of the Act and on this ground also prejudice was caused to the Accused and hence the trial is vitiated. 8. The learned Advocate appearing to the Revision Petitioner-Accused relied on a decision reported in Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., 1996(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 197, where it was held that serious prejudice has been caused to Revision Petitioner because of non supply of the public analyst report as required under Section 13(2) of the Act. Further, it was held that such an objection can be taken even at the stage of Revision. The Courts below have not considered the above factors into consideration and since prejudice was caused to the Revision Petitioner-Accused, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside……” 6. In the instant case, in the chief-examination, P.W.1 had stated that Section 13(2) notice was served to the Accused, but in the cross-examination, he had admitted that notice sent was not served to the Accused and it was returned as the Accused refused to receive it. The answer given by P.W.1 in the chief and cross-examination are contradictory to each other. Further though P.W.1 says that notice sent to the Accused have been returned, the returned cover has not been marked and the said fact has not been established. Only a copy of the notice supported to be sent to the Accused was marked as Ex.P23. As there is no proof for compliance of Section 13(2), the statutory right given to the Accused under Section 13(2) of the Act has been deprived. 7. Hence the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioners/Accused are set aside. The fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to the Revision Petitioners forthwith.