ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - Diwan Singh has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence of six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 600/- , in default 3 months' further R.I. u/s 7 read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The conviction of the Applicant is based upon the following findings: (1) That on 3-5-1963 at about 11-30 a.m. he was found exposing milk for sale, (2) that PW M.C. Kalra, a Food Inspector, took sample of that milk after paying its price, (3) that the said sample was divided in three portions and one portion of it was given to the Applicant, (4) that one of the said samples was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst and his report showed that it was deficient in non-fatty solids by about 14, and, (5) that the Applicant's defence that the milk from which the sample was taken was pure and not adulterated was false. 3. On behalf of the Applicant the only point argued before me was that as there was an inordinate delay in the launching of the Applicant's prosecution he was greatly prejudiced in his defence inasmuch as he could not get the sample of milk analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Applicant I am satisfied that this contention has no force. 4. Now as stated above, the sample of the milk was taken on 3-5-1963. The record shows that the milk was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst UP and it was analysed by him on 30-5-1963. The date on which the instant complaint was filed can not be ascertained from the record, but the first order summoning the Applicant is dated 3-1-1964. It is obvious, therefore, that the complaint must have been filed on or sometime before that date. The Applicant appeared in Court for the first time on 15-2-1964, but he did not apply for the sample to be sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis till 30-11-1964. However when he applied for the analysis, the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for that purpose. The Director carried out the analysis on 20-12-1964, though he prepared his report on 11-1-1965. However when he applied for the analysis, the sample was sent to the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for that purpose. The Director carried out the analysis on 20-12-1964, though he prepared his report on 11-1-1965. That report also showed that the sample was adulterated, and that the milk solids other than milk fat were only 85. From the sequence of dates and events stated above, it is clear that the Applicant could have asked for the analysis of the sample by the Director, Central Food Laboratory Calcutta as early as 15-2-1964, but he did not do so till about nine and a half months later. In these circumstances it is futile for him to contend that he was prejudiced on account of the delay in the launching of the prosecution against him. However, even if there was some delay, it has not caused any prejudice to the Applicant as the reports, both of the Public Analyst UP, and the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, show--the former explicitly and the latter impliedly--that no change had taken place in the constituents of the milk which would have interfered with the analysis, and that the sample was adulterated. u/s 13(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while it is open to the Court to accept or reject the report of the Public Analyst UP it has no such option in the case of the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, the contents of which the courts have to accept as correct for all purposes under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. As that report also shows that the sample was adulterated and was deficient in fatty solids, and there has been no prejudice to the Applicant, he has been rightly convicted for exposing adulterated milk for sale. 5. On behalf of the Applicant reliance was placed on the decision in Bishna v. State Cr. Rev. 595 of 1964 decided on 30-9-1965 along with Cr. Revs. No. 1612 of 1962, 1309 of 1963 and No. 432 of 1964 for the proposition that the sample was bound to have deteriorated and to have been rendered unfit for analysis by 15-2-1964--the date of the first appearance of the Applicant in the trial court. Rev. 595 of 1964 decided on 30-9-1965 along with Cr. Revs. No. 1612 of 1962, 1309 of 1963 and No. 432 of 1964 for the proposition that the sample was bound to have deteriorated and to have been rendered unfit for analysis by 15-2-1964--the date of the first appearance of the Applicant in the trial court. It appears that Mathur, J. who decided these revisions had some experiments conducted with a view to finding out how long it would take milk with one drop or two drops of formalin added to it and kept in normal conditions, to curdle. The finding which he recorded on the basis of those experiments, and the evidence of the experts who performed them, is to the effect that if two drops of formalin are added to each ounce of milk then such milk is not likely to curdle before 308 days and is not likely to deteriorate before 295 days. The evidence of the Food Inspector in the instant case shows that he added two drops of formalin to each ounce of milk. Hence even on the finding of Mathur, J. in the case referred to above, the sample in the present case was not likely to deteriorate and to curdle before 295 and 308 days respectively. As the Public Analyst UP analysed the sample sent to him within a month, no question of deterioration or curdling of sample could possibly arise in his case. As a matter of fact even on 15-2-1964--the date on which the Applicant first appeared in court--no question of the sample deteriorating or getting curdled would arise as there were still at least seven days left for the first contingency and 20 days left for the second contingency to arise. Hence if the Applicant had promptly applied for the analysis of the sample by the Director Central Food Laboratory Calcutta, instead of waiting for another nine and a half months he would have got the latter's report before any question of deterioration or curdling would have arisen. Besides it is to be noted that the finding of Mathur, J. can only be regarded as furnishing a rough and ready guide, and it would not be right to allow it to prevail against the report of the Director Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, which under the law are binding on courts for all purposes under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Applicant cannot derive any assistance from the decision of Mathur, J. in the case aforementioned, with the result that his revision fails and is dismissed. The Applicant was granted bail for the pendency of his revision. He shall surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence imposed on him. 6. Sri B.C. Saxena, Learned Counsel for the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra prayed that as this was the second conviction of the Applicant, the Nagar Mahapalika might be awarded a sum of at least Rs. 300/- on account of the expenses incurred by it in the prosecution of the Applicant. In my opinion this prayer is well conceived. The record shows that the Applicant was convicted and sentenced once before under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He is therefore a second offender. In these circumstances I accept the prayer of Sri Saxena and direct that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 300/- shall be paid to the Nagar Mahapalika Agra, towards the expenses incurred by it in the present prosecution.