- (1.)The challenge in this revision petition is to the judgment and order dated 19th September, 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2000.
(2.)The Petitioner was convicted for a violation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food adulteration Act, 1954. He was required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(3.)The sole ground urged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the report of the Public Analyst under Section 13(2) of the Act was not supplied to the Petitioner. The factual basis for this submission is to be found in paragraph-7 of the impugned order where it is noted that the Food Inspector (PW1) had admitted in his cross-examination that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner had received the notice as required under Section 13(2) of the Act.
Section 13(2) of the Act reads as follows:

13(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 person 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.