JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - The applicant, Om Prakash, stands convicted for an offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. The facts found by the courts below by are that, on the 10th of April, 1965, at 6.30 a.m., the applicant was found selling milk Mohalla Chhipi Tola, Agra, within the limits of the Agra Municipal Corporation, that Food Inspector Shri M. L. Goel purchased some milk by way of sample which was divided into there parts and sealed in three bottles, one of which was given to the applicant and that the sample in one of the bottles which the Food Inspector retained was sent for examination to the Public Analyst who reported that the milk was deficient in non-fatty solids by 14 per cent, and it was adulterated. Ultimately a complaint was filed by the Nagar Swastha Adhikari followed by the trial of the applicant which resulted in applicant's conviction. The applicant's appeal to the Sessions Court was also dismissed where after the applicant filed this revision. 3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the applicant at the hearing of this revision, which appears to have substance is the plea that, in the circumstances of the present case, it must be held that the applicant was prejudiced in his defence by reason of the fact that the filing of the complaint against the applicant was so belated that the applicant was altogether denied the opportunity, under the provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act, to get the sample of milk in the bottle handed over to the applicant analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, A.I.R. 1967 SC 970. This contention appears to be well founded. 4. I have already mentioned that the recovery of the milk alleged to be adulterated was made on the 10th of April, 1965. The report of the Public Analyst as regards the sample thereof sent to him is dated the 1st of June, 1965, and the prosecution appears to have been sanctioned on the 4th of June, 1965. 4. I have already mentioned that the recovery of the milk alleged to be adulterated was made on the 10th of April, 1965. The report of the Public Analyst as regards the sample thereof sent to him is dated the 1st of June, 1965, and the prosecution appears to have been sanctioned on the 4th of June, 1965. The complaint of the Nagar Swastha Adhikari was, however, registered on the 29th of July, 1965, on which date the Magistrate concerned registered the complaint and directed the applicant to be summoned for the 26th of August, 1965. It is obvious that the right conferred by the Legislature, under Section 13 of the Act, to apply to the Director of the Central food Laboratory for his certificate can be exercised by an accused person only after the prosecution has been instituted and the accused person has knowledge thereof. In normal course one would expect the accused person to make such an application on the first date on which, according to the summons served on him, he is required to appear in court. Keeping in view the time schedule given by Dr. Sat Prakash, in the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, which time schedule appears to have been accepted by the Supreme Court, it is manifest that the sample of milk left with the applicant was bound to have got decomposed and defy analysis after the expiry of a period of four months from the 10tn of April, 1965. It is, therefore, obvious that, in the present case, the applicant's right to obtain the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, which in law supersedes the report of the Public Analyst, had been rendered infructuous. 5. It was urged on behalf of the State that in the present case the applicant does not appear to have made any application for the examination of the sample which was handed over to him and, further, that he does not appear to have made any grievance of the matter at the trial or in the appellate court or even in this Court at the time of the filing of the revision. His contention is that, in these circumstances, the argument that the applicant was prejudiced in his defence should not be accepted. I am unable to accept this reasoning. His contention is that, in these circumstances, the argument that the applicant was prejudiced in his defence should not be accepted. I am unable to accept this reasoning. The party to whom a sample is given need not preserve that sample after the contents thereof had got decomposed. There was, in the circumstances of the present case, no point in a request being made on behalf of the applicant to the sample of milk handed over to the applicant, assuming that he had retained it in his possession, should be sent to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory even though, according to the evidence of the expert accepted by the highest court of the land, it must have got decomposed by that time. As has been observed in the concluding portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the report of the Public Analyst has not ceased to be good evidence merely because the certificate of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory had not been or could not have been obtained, but the reason why the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained is that the accused must be held to have been prejudiced in his defence by reason of his being denied a valuable right of defending himself due solely to deliberate acts of the prosecution. In the present case it appears that immediately after the report of the Public Analyst had been received by the Nagar Swastha Adhikari prosecution of the applicant was sanctioned as early as the 4th of June, 1965. Signing of the complaint appears, however, to have been unnecessarily delayed until the 16th of July, 1965, i.e., for a period of a month and a half, and there was further delay in filing the said complaint in the court concerned. In my opinion, keeping in view the principle, which appears to have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, A.I.R. 1967 SC 970, the plea of prejudice raised by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be brushed aside or-negatived on the ground merely that such plea had not been taken by him at any earlier stage. Penalties provided in respect of offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are heavy and it appears essential that authorities upon whom"' the duty of looking after the supply of unadulterated food stuffs is cast act efficiently and promptly so that a person who is alleged to have contravened the provisions of the Act may not be denied the opportunity to take recourse to provisions which have been incorporated in the Act for his benefit. The result is that, in my opinion, the conviction of the applicant must be set aside. 6. I accordingly allow this revision, set aside the conviction of the applicant and acquit him of the offence for which he was tried. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are dis-charged. The fine, if realised from the applicant, shall be refunded to him.