C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.7.1982 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Basti, in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1981 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the report of the Public Analyst 6% linseed oil was found but according to item A.05.15 of Appendix-B of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 7% mixture of linseed seeds is permitted and hence the revisionist committed no offence. it appears that the said plea was raised during the appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge but it was not considered on the ground that mustard seeds and mustard oil have separate specification in Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, while mustard seeds will come under the category of A.05.15 of the Rules but mustard oil will come under the category of A.17.06. It appears that the specification mentioned in A.17.06 of the Rules does not permit any extraneous matter, as stated by learned counsel for the revisionist but the same is permitted in case of mustard seeds seized as a whole and not in from of mustard oil. It appears from Rule 44 that admixture of two edible oils is not permissible. Since linseed oil was found in the sample to the extent of 6% the sample should be treated as adulterated. The next point that has been raised by the learned counsel is that there was no compliance of provision of Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Rules. The said plea was also raised before the learned lower appellate court. The learned counsel has submitted that the Analyst's report was sent to the revisionist on 24.1.1979 but the complaint was filed in court on 2.2.1979. According to him Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Rules provides that report of the Public Analyst should be sent to the accused after institution of the case. In the case of Kandasami v. Food Inspector, Athoor, 1982 Cri. LJ 963 , it was held that the report of the Public Analyst must be forwarded to the accused only after institution of complaint and not before. Non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. Act vitiates entire proceedings. Lower appellate court has considered the evidence of P.W.1 Food Inspector, who has stated that the Analyst's report was sent to the revisionist after institution of the complaint. It has been observed by the learned Judge that the evidence of the Food Inspector has not been challenged in cross examination so he did not see any reason to dis-believe him but it is apparent from the face of the record that the report was sent on 24.1.1979 prior do the filing of the complaint in court on 2.2.1979. So I find that the reason stated by the learned Judge does not seem to be in accordance with the matter on record of this case. Since non-compliance of the provision of Section 13 (2) of the P.F.A. was made, the trial is vitiated in view of the decision of the Division Bench of Madras high Court, quoted above. The revision is, therefore, allowed, The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate on 18.7.1981 in case No. 7008 of 1980 as confirmed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1981 under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is hereby set aside. The accused is, therefore, acquitted. He is discharged from the bail bond. Revision Allowed. ;