Chandra Pal Singh, J. - 1. By this petition, the petitioner Nathusingh seeks interference of this Court with the judgment of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1979. affirming the judgment of the Municipal Judicial Magistrate First Class. Ujjain in Criminal Trial No. 1727 of 1977 finding the accused-petitioner guilty of selling adulterated buffalo milk prohibited under section 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) add sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for six months with Rs. 1000/- fine and in the alternative further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act.

2. On 13-5-1977 at about 7 a.m. Satyanarayan Gupta (PW 1). the Food Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain in the presence of David (PW 2) and one Ambaram stopped the petitioner on Engineering College Road within the limits of the Corporation and bought for him 660 ml. of buffalo milk for Rs. 1.50 so that it could be later on analysed by a Public Analyst. The petitioner passed the receipt (Ex. P. 5) in this regard. Satyanarayan Gupta (PW 1) divided this bought milk in three equal parts filling each of them in three separate clean and dried bottles and poured 18 drops of formalin in each of them. They were sealed. Necessary memoranda were prepared, One of the sealed bottles was sent to the Public Analyst and the Public Analyst vide his report contained in the document (Ex. P.10) found that buffalo milk was below standard, it being deficient both in the contents of milk fat and milk solids non fat, they being respectively 4.7 per cent and 8. 6 per cent (as against 5 per cent and 9 per cent) showing deficiency of 0.3 and 0.4 per cent respectively. On these facts when charged with and tried for selling adulterated buffalo milk prohibited under section 7(1) and made punishable under section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, the petitioner denied his guilt, In the defence, it was suggested that the milk sold was not buffalo mille and it was contended that there had been no compliance with - the provisions contained in sections (2) of the Act, The learned Magistrate finding the case against the petitioner provide beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, The petitioner's appeal failed.

3. The first contention for the petitioner is that the milk sold was not buffalo milk but simply milk. In support of this contention, it was argued that the words 'Bhains Dhudh' in the receipt (Ex. P. 5) and the memo (Ex. P. 7) have been super-imposed, Both the Courts below did not find any force in this contention, It is purely a finding of fact based upon the evidence of Satyanarayan (PW 1), who even though a Food Inspector is a good witness.

4. The second and final contention, however, is that there was no compliance with the provisions contained in section 13(2) of the Act. Section 13(2) of the Act lays down as follows :-

"(2) On receipt of the report of the result of the analysis under subsection (1) to the effect that the article of food is adulterated, the Local (Health) Authority shall, after the institution of prosecution against the person from whom the sample of the articles of food was taken, and the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 14-A, 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."

Rule 9-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, which is also relevant in this regard, runs as follow:-

"9.A Local (Health) Authority to send report to person concerned-The Local (