JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. 2. The present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the applicant – original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code” for short). The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli convicting him rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 (1) read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred as the “Act” for short) and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo for a further period of one month simple imprisonment and the judgment and order dated 24.02.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003, confirming the the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli. 3. Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant, has firstly taken this Court through the evidence led by the prosecution and through the judgments passed by the Lower Courts. 4. The brief facts arising from the record of the case, are as under: 4.1 The applicant – Kishorbhai Babubhai Desai runs his business of selling cold-drinks and potable waters in the name and style of “Babubhai Ananasvala” in Tower Road of Amreli. On 28.11.1994, the complainant-Food Inspector visited his shop and purchased pineapple syrup for getting it analyzed by Public Laboratory and to get the report for confirmation that whether the articles sold is as per prescribed and permissible under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. A sample was sent to the Public Analyst on the same day, which was received by the Analyst on 09.01.1995. It was opined by the Analyst that the sample which was collected from the shop of the accused, does not confer to the standard as per the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. After getting proper sanction from the authority, a complaint was lodged against the present applicant-accused. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence held the applicant guilty for the said charges and convicted the applicant-accused for the said offences. After getting proper sanction from the authority, a complaint was lodged against the present applicant-accused. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence held the applicant guilty for the said charges and convicted the applicant-accused for the said offences. The applicant carried the matter further by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli. By judgment and order dated 24.02.2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Amreli dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Against these two decisions, the present petition is filed. 5. It has been contended by Mr.Parikh, learned advocate for the applicant that there is a breach of Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Act. He submits that under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, it is mandatory for the authority to serve a copy of the report to the accused so that he can request the Court for sending the articles to any other recognized food laboratory. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate, has submitted that the notice under Section 13(2) along with analyst, report was sent to Babubhai Ananaswala, Tower Road, Amreli and not to the accused. Exh:34 is the intimation sent by the Food Inspector as per Section 13(2) of the Act and Exh:35 is an acknowledgment receipt of the said letter. Neither the letter has been sent to the accused – Kishorbhai Babubhai Desai nor the same is received by him. The signature on the receipt is of Babubhai Khundabhai, who appears to be father of the accused. It is pertinent to note that Babubhai Khundabhai is not the accused in the present case, therefore, there is a clear breach of Section 13(2) of the Act. The authority ought to have informed the accused about the report and ought to have served the same to the accused himself and not to any other person. By not supplying the report to the accused, a valuable right of the applicant for sending the sample to some other laboratory is jeopardized and he could not know the details of the report. In support of his submission, Mr.Parikh, learned advocate, has relied upon the judgment of Vallabhbhai Popatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1518. In support of his submission, Mr.Parikh, learned advocate, has relied upon the judgment of Vallabhbhai Popatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2005 (2) GLR 1518. He has submitted that it has been held by the Court that the report of Public Analyst must be sent to the accused not to another person, though, he might be a relative of the accused person. 6. Another judgment reported by Mr.Parikh, learned advocate is of Shahniwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1990 Cri. L. J. 1337 delivered by Himachal Pradesh High Court. He has submitted that the facts of the case of Shahniwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) and the facts of the present case about serving of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act are similar and the case is squarely covered and the ratio laid down by the Court would be applicable in the present case also. “13. There is another point raised by Mrs. Ranjana Parmar and the same relates to the application of S. 13(2) of the Act. It is asserted that the petitioner actually did not receive any notice. She contends that the same has been thumb marked by Nasiruddin who has not been identified to be the father of the petitioner. Therefore, it is asserted that there is no compliance of the compliance of the mandatory provisions of S. 13(2) of the Act and this failure has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. It is true that this notice has been thumb marked by one Nasiruddin and it appears that the name of the father of the petitioner is Nasiruddin. In case this notice had been received by the father of the petitioner, naturally, the same would have been given to the petitioner by the father to enable him to apply to the court for sending the second part of the sample for analysis by the Central Food Laboratory, Ghaziabad, which is a right of the accused under the Act. Failure to do so is due to the non-receipt of this notice by the petitioner. Failure to do so is due to the non-receipt of this notice by the petitioner. The result is, this aspect of the matter becomes thoroughly doubtful entailing benefit in favour of the petitioner leaving open the question whether S. 13(2) of the Act requires not only sending of the notice to the accused but also receipt thereof by him and him alone, more so, when it is sent by a registered letter.” 7. On the other side, Mr.K.P. Rawal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that both the Trial Courts have considered Section 114 of the Evidence Act and as per his submission, it has been rightly observed by the Trial Court that the service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to the father of the accused is as good as service to the accused. 8. Mr.Parikh, learned advocate, has relied upon the judgment of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 75 only, it has been held by the Apex Court that non-supply of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused would cause serious prejudice to him. 9. I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. Mr. Parikh, learned advocate has not argued the matter on other points. Section 13 of the Act is reproduced here-in-below: “13. Report of public analyst.- (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. Parikh, learned advocate has not argued the matter on other points. Section 13 of the Act is reproduced here-in-below: “13. Report of public analyst.- (1) The public analyst shall deliver, in such form as may be prescribed, a report to the Local (Health) Authority of the result of the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis. (2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of good 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 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.” 10. I am of the opinion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate is required to be accepted. This Court, in a case of Vallabhbhai Popatbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and another (supra), has observed in Paragraphs-10(i) and (ii), which are reproduced hereinbelow: “10(i) The third point raised by the petitioner is also able to twirl the balance in favour of the petitioner because there is no convincing evidence to show that the report of Public Analyst was ever sent to the accused. It is true that the concerned authority had sent an R.P.A.D. to the accused, after receipt of the report from the Public Analyst but the evidence led by the prosecution indicates that the accused were intimated only that the article sent for analysis is found adulterated as the same was not as per the prescribed standards. It is true that the concerned authority had sent an R.P.A.D. to the accused, after receipt of the report from the Public Analyst but the evidence led by the prosecution indicates that the accused were intimated only that the article sent for analysis is found adulterated as the same was not as per the prescribed standards. 10(ii) Sending mere intimation is not sufficient in view of the Act because supply of report of the Public Analyst is mandatory and non-supply of such report and its effect is found adverse/fatal to the case of the prosecution in 'n' number of cases including in the case of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra). At this stage, it is important to note that the intimation even sent to the accused is not the perfect intimation because a copy of the intimation produced in the evidence reveals that the sample drawn from the accused was sent for analysis at Bhuj and in reality, it was sent to Vadodara. In such a situation, how the accused can exercise his right to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Food Laboratory. So such vagueness in the intimation also ought not have been brushed aside by the two Courts below. However, Mr.Thakkar has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Rameshwar Dayal (Supra). It is true that this Court, while dealing with the Criminal Revision Application and that too against two concurrent findings, has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and the finding recorded by the two Courts below. But if the apparent error is emerging in appreciating the evidence, this Court can positively point out error in the areas where the two Courts below have committed error and/or have recorded erroneous findings. The point which can be said to be absolutely legal can be pressed into service in light of the total evidence available on record. So the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the Rajkot Municipal Corporation i.e. AIR 1975 SC 1960 , in the case of Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration (Note-B) or other decisions i.e. AIR 1972 SC 2044 , in the case of Jagdish Prasad alias Jagdish Prasad Gupta v. The State of West Bengal; 1993 (1) GLH 250 , in the case of Prithviraj Dahyabhai v. State of Gunarat and anr. and 1967 GLR 588 , in the case of Manaka Hari v. State of Gujarat, would not help the Municipal Corporation.” 11. In the present case, though the intimation is attached with the detailed report, the same has not been sent to the accused. It was the duty of the Food Inspector to send the report to the accused. The accused lost his valuable right, which would vitiate the proceedings undertaken by the prosecution. 12. It has been held in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. (supra) by the Apex Court that if there is a breach of compliance under Section 13(2) of the Act, a very valuable right given to the accused is vitiated and would cause great prejudice to him. As stated hereinabove, it is an admitted position that the report, though, sent at the address, where the accused was doing his business, was not received by the accused and the same was not addressed to the accused. 13. It has been held in the case of Shahniwaj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) by the Court that if the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act is received by the father of the accused, is not a good service of the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. It has been further held that if we presume that the father must have handed over the report to the accused, that would not suffice to establish that the accused has received the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It has been held that in such situation, the matter becomes thoroughly doubtful entailing benefit in favour of the petitioner leaving open the question whether Section 13 (2) of the Act requires not only sending of the notice to the accused but also receipt thereof by him and him alone, more so, when it is sent by a registered letter. 14. In the present case also, father of the applicant has received the notice issued by the authority under Section 13(2) of the Act, but the same is not a legal notice prescribed under Section 13(2) of the Act. 15. In view of this, the present Criminal Revision Application is hereby allowed. 14. In the present case also, father of the applicant has received the notice issued by the authority under Section 13(2) of the Act, but the same is not a legal notice prescribed under Section 13(2) of the Act. 15. In view of this, the present Criminal Revision Application is hereby allowed. The judgment and order rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2003 dated 24.02.2006 and also the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amrlei in Criminal Case No.315 of 1995, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner – accused is ordered to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The petitioner is on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.