( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 (original accused No. 1) Mansingh Chhajuram Yadav owns a shop at Nadiad. He is dealing in milk curd etc. Petitioner No. 2 (original accused No. 2) Kundankumar Chiranjilal Yadav was serving with petitioner No. 1. On 28-9-1978 at about 4-45 P. M. Jagdishchandra Barot Food Inspector of Nadiad Municipality went to the said shop. Accused No. 2 was present at the shop at that time. The Food Inspector purchased about 600 grams of curd from accused No. 2 and collected the same in a vessel and divided the same in three parts and sealed the three parts as per the procedure laid down in the Act as well as in the rules. Accused No. 1 was not present at the shop at the time the sample was taken. One of the three samples was sent to the Public Analyst who on analysis found that it was adulterated in that it contained excess water by 13% and that way did not conform to the standards required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) as also the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules ). On receipt of this report of the Public Analyst complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against these two accused for an offence punishable under sec 7 read with sec. 16 (i) (a) (i) on 21-11-1978. After filing the complaint a copy of the report of the Public Analyst was forwarded along with a joint notice to both the accused by registered post as required by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Copy of the said notice is at Ex. 19 of the record of the trial Court. The same was sent at the address of accused No. 1 but the postal acknowledgment Ex. 18 shows that the letter was addressed to accused No. 2 and the same was received by accused No. 2. Admittedly no such notice nor copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to accused No. 1. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to accused No. 2 on 28-11-1978 and it was received by accused No. 2 on 30-11-1978. Accused No. 2 did not make any application to the trial Court for sending the Sample 10 the Central Food Laboratory but accused No. 1 on 30-3-1979 submitted an application at Ex. 23 requesting the trial Court to send the sample to the Central Food Laboratory. The trial Court rejected the said application observing that the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was required to be sent only to accused No. 2 from whom. the sample was collected and was not required to be sent to accused No. 1. The matter was carried in revision before the Court of Sessions at Nadiad and the learned Sessions Judge also agreed with the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the revision application being Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 1979 Thereafter the trial Court proceeded with the matter and the learned Judicial Magistrate on appreciating the evidence recorded before him held both the accused guilty and convicted both of them of the offences with which they were charged. He sentenced them to imprisonment and fine. The matter was carried in appeal before the Court of Sessions at Nadiad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal dismissed the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1980. Being dissatisfied with the same the original accused have filed this Revision Petition before this Court.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate Mr. D. F. Amin who appears for Mr. B. K. Amin for the petitioners raised the following contentions before me: - (1) Copy of the report of the Public Analyst was required to be sent to accused No. 1 also and that having not been done the prosecution must fail. (2) The sample was not sent to the Central Food Laboratory inspite of the request made by accused No. 1 and therefore also the prosecution must fail. (3) There was no churning or homogenizing of the curd after it was collected before it was divided into three parts and that also vitiates the analysis. (4) There is no evidence