JUDGMENT:- Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.7.2006 recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, convicting the applicant for contravention of the provisions of Rule 32(b) and (3) and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and ultimately sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, the present revision was filed. 2. In support of the application, Mr. Wahane learned counsel for the applicants argued that notice under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was admittedly not served on the applicants. He has shown me the postal envelop that was produced on the record of the trial Court which shows that service could not be effected on the applicant because he was absent on all dates when the postman had gone to him and finally the postman returned the envelop making endorsement that he was absent. That is also a finding that is recorded by the trial Court in para 16 of the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The trial court has however answered this submission by saying that no prejudice was caused to the applicant accused and that is why it rejected the said submission. 3. Another charge against the applicant was that he did not have the licence of manufacturing Garam Masala at the time when the sample was taken. The counsel submitted that the licence for the earlier period admittedly was available. It was not renewed during the period when the sample was taken, but application was made and the licence was renewed by the department. This is not a case of complete absence of licence. He, therefore, urged this Court to set aside the finding recorded by the courts below. 4. Per contra. Mr. Son are learned A.P.P., argued that the applicant appears to have avoided to accept the notice under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as is clear from para 16 of the judgment of the trial Court and therefore the applicant cannot be given benefit of the tricks adopted by him. He then submitted that the licence was not renewed at the relevant time and therefore there was violation of the provisions under the Act and Rules. He supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgments recorded by the courts below. He then submitted that the licence was not renewed at the relevant time and therefore there was violation of the provisions under the Act and Rules. He supported the impugned judgment and order and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgments recorded by the courts below. Having heard learned counsel for rival parties at the outset. I find that the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been held to be mandatory since a very valuable right is created in the accused to have the sample examined by the Central Laboratory and that right cannot be denied. Reliance placed on the decision in Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 659 by the learned counsel for the applicant contending that even if the same was not pressed into service in the courts below, the same can be raised at a later stage. What I find that this point of facts was raised before the trial Court and therefore it was dealt in para 16 of the judgment of the trial Court and hence this decision will have no application. Since the Supreme Court has already held this provision to be mandatory, in my opinion the trial Court was wrong in saying that no prejudice was caused to the applicant. Absence of compliance of mandatory provision must result into vitiation of prosecution. The courts below have therefore clearly erred in not accepting the submission regarding the mandatory nature of the provision. 6. As regards the submission made by A.P.P. about the tricks adopted by the applicant to avoid notice under Section 13(2), the only thing that I can say is that it is the duty of the Food Inspector to serve the notice under Section 13(2) being mandatory. He cannot be allowed to raise such a plea as nothing prevented him from having recourse to whatever form of remedies were available in effecting service on the accused. No evidence was tendered by him before the Court that the applicant deliberately avoided to accept the notice and the endorsement about the same is not for bona fide reasons. Neither the postman was examined nor the Food Inspector deposed anything about it. Therefore the prosecution cannot be allowed to raise such a plea. 7. No evidence was tendered by him before the Court that the applicant deliberately avoided to accept the notice and the endorsement about the same is not for bona fide reasons. Neither the postman was examined nor the Food Inspector deposed anything about it. Therefore the prosecution cannot be allowed to raise such a plea. 7. As regards the licence, it is seen that this is not a case of total absence of licence for manufacturing Garam masala. Admittedly the applicant was having licence but at the relevant time he had applied for renewal of the licence and later on got the licence renewed also. Therefore, in my opinion no violation can be found on that score. There is no violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the applicant. The finding of guilt recorded by the courts below will have to be over turned. In the result, I make the following order. 8. Revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the courts below are quashed and set aside. Applicant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Revision allowed.