Section 13(2) notice defects can vitiate prosecution when they impair the accused's right to challenge the analyst's report.

Omission in a Section 13(2) notice to specify the court where prosecution was pending was treated as a denial of the accused's statutory right to seek analysis by the Central Food Laboratory. Because the notice left the accused uncertain about where to apply, the defect was not treated as a mere technical lapse when it affected the right to challenge the Public Analyst's report. Delay in launching the prosecution further increased the prejudice. The prosecution was held vitiated, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether omission to specify the Court in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 deprived the accused of a valuable statutory right and vitiated the prosecution.

Analysis: The notice under Section 13(2) is intended to inform the accused of the prosecution so that he may exercise the statutory right to seek analysis of the sample by the Central Food Laboratory. Where the notice does not mention the Court in which the prosecution is pending, the accused is left uncertain as to where such application must be made. The omission is not a mere technical defect when the right to challenge the Public Analyst's report is affected, and the delay in launching the prosecution further aggravated the prejudice caused.

Conclusion: The omission was held to vitiate the prosecution, and the conviction and sentence were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---