JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 02.05.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Case No. G347 of 1988 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16(i)(a) (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- has been affirmed. 3. It is alleged that on 09.12.1987 the complainant had purchased 600 grammes of Arhar Dal in three packets and each packet was containing 200 grammes of Dal. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst who vide his report dated 22.12.1987 opined that Arhar Dal was adulterated. A copy of the Public Analyst was sent to the petitioner for his information and after taking consent of the Civil Surgeon a complaint was filed on 11.05.1988. After receipt of the complaint cognizance was taken and after charge trial proceeded. 4. Since the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal bring Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1991 which however was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma on 02.05.2001. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate did not have the power to take cognizance since the State Government had not empowered him to do so. It has been stated that the cognizance order being itself faulty and strike at the foundation of the case the judgment of conviction of the petitioner be set aside. It has been stated that the cognizance order being itself faulty and strike at the foundation of the case the judgment of conviction of the petitioner be set aside. It has also been stated that although the report of the Public Analyst was made available to the petitioner but his right to prefer an application to get the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory had been extinguished by the prosecution, since the petitioner was never informed of the right which had accrued to him in terms of Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955. 6. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It appears that in course of trial two witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution whereas the defence has examined one witness. P.W.1, M.N. Mallik is the Food Inspector who has stated that he had taken the sample of Arhar Dal and had sent it for analysis and after receipt of the report the copy of the same was sent to the petitioner. 7. P.W.2, Rajendra Prasad, had accompanied P.W. -1 in taking the sample. This witness has also supported the prosecution case. 8. The defence has examined D.W.-1, Mahesh Kumar Singh, who had denied taking of any sample from the shop of the petitioner. The first point of argument with respect to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for trying the case has been succinctly expressed by the learned appellate court as pursuant to the recommendation made by the High Court vide notification dated 26.08.1998 Sub-Division Judicial Magistrate was empowered to try the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, such point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby negated. 9. However, with respect to what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Section 13 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act it would be necessary to refer to Exhibit – 6. Exhibit – 6 is the report of the Public Analyst. Exhibit – 9 seems to be a communication sent to the petitioner with a copy of the Public Analyst report. The said communication merely reveals of sending of the report of the Public Analyst without making aware the petitioner of his right and getting the sample tested through the Central Food Laboratory. 10. Exhibit – 9 seems to be a communication sent to the petitioner with a copy of the Public Analyst report. The said communication merely reveals of sending of the report of the Public Analyst without making aware the petitioner of his right and getting the sample tested through the Central Food Laboratory. 10. In order to appreciate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be necessary to refer to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 which reads as under:- “13. Report of Public analyst. -(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 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.” 11. Sub-section 2 of Section 13 thus reveals that after the report of the Public Analyst is received and after institution of the prosecution against the person from whom the sample had been taken forward a copy of the report of the result of the analysis informing such person that if he is so desired he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a 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. A bare reading of sub-section 2 of Section 13 reveals that the same is a mandatory provision which has to be strictly complied with. 12. A bare reading of sub-section 2 of Section 13 reveals that the same is a mandatory provision which has to be strictly complied with. 12. In the present case as has been stated above, the petitioner was never informed of his statutory right under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Absence on the part of the authority to inform the petitioner his valuable right under the Act has virtually annihilated the prospect of the petitioner getting the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory. Such blatant violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as highlighted in the earlier paragraphs does entitle the petitioner to cause interference by this Court to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court. None of the courts below have spared a thought with respect to the contention of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this application is allowed and the judgment dated 02.05.2001 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Koderma in Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Case No. G347 of 1988 convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 16(i)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- is, hereby, set aside. 14. The petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.