The requirements of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, are mandatory, and the prosecution must establish actual receipt of the public analyst's report by the accused.

PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision application the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh and confirmed in appeal by the Learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, are assailed.

( 2 ) IN short, the prosecution case is that, on 7-6-1986 the petitioner was transacting sale of adulterated cow milk; the Food Inspector, Sundargarh purchased 0. 660 mls. of cow milk on payment of requisite price and after dividing the purchased milk into three equal divisions added 18 drops of 40% formalin to each of the divisions; packed them in clean, dry, empty and neutral glass bottles separately; the mouth of the glass bottles were fitted tight with corks, sealed and after affixing the label copies, as required under law, they were wrapped with papers and fastened with threads properly and both the ends of the papers were folded and affixed with gum; the paper slips bearing serial number, code number and the signature of the local Health Authority on the above sample bottles were wrapped and the signature of the petitioner was taken on a part of the paper slips and a part of the paper wrapper : the three sample bottles were sealed at different places, one part of the sample bottles was sent to the Public Analyst of the Government of Orissa along with a memorandum in Form No. VII under the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (in short 'the Rules') and the specimen impression of the seal used by registered parcel; the remaining two sample bottles were delivered in the office of the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh, on 1-7-86 the report of the public analyst was received wherefrom it was found that the quality of the sample of cow milk fell below the prescribed standard, and was therefore adulterated within the meaning of S. 2 (ia) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'); the Food Inspector felt that since the petitioner had committed an offence by exposing and storing adulterated cow milk for sale for human consumption his prosecution in accordance with law was necessitated; and accordingly submitted all the relevant documents to the sanctioning authority (the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh) for obtaining his written consent to file prosecution and after obtaining the consent submitted the prosecution report. It is further stated that a copy of the report of the public analyst was sent by registered post with A. D. to the petitioner and that the petitioner had a right to get the samples examined by the Central Food Laboratory u/s. 13 (2) of the Act, which he did not avail.

( 3 ) ON examination of the materials on record, the learned trial Magistrate held that the petitioner was guilty u/s. 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act and convicted him thereunder. On the question of sentence he heard the petitioner and directed that the petitioner was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. This judgment of conviction and sentence was assailed in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, who confirmed the conviction and sentence.

( 4 ) IN revision, though several grounds of attack were pressed to upset the findings of guilt, ultimately it was restricted to one major ground of challenge. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the copy of public analyst's report purported to have been sent to the petitioner by registered post was received by him. The conclusions of the learned Magistrate and the learned appellate Judge that the receipt showing despatch of a letter to the petitioner by registered post was sufficient compliance of the requirement of S. 13 (2), and the Presumption that the documents in question had been received by the petitioner is erroneous. Relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1989 (1) OLR 340 : (1989 Cri LJ 1613) (Bijaya Kumar Ram. v. State), it was submitted th