JUDGMENT S. D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against an order dated 3rd July, 1965, passed by Sri Kishori Lal, Magistrate first class, Agra. Mahendra Singh (respondent) was tried by the Magistrate for having contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, punishable under Section 16 (1) (a) (iii) of the same Act, and was acquitted. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of Mahendra Singh (respondent) might be briefly stated as follows. On 28th November, 1962, at about 8.05 a.m. Sri A. C. Asthana, a Food Inspector of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra, purchased sample of cow's milk from Mahendra Singh (respondent) at a place called Shahganj, within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika, and after having divided the purchased milk into three equal parts and adding formalin to it, sealed all the three phials in the presence of the vendor. One such sealed phial was given to the vendor, the other retained for 'office use and the third sent to the Public Analyst, U. P. Government, Lucknow, for analysis and report. The sample was examined by the Public Analyst on 27-12-962 and it was found to contain 4.6 per cent fatty solids and 7.3 per cent non-fatty solids. Thus it was found deficient in non-fatty solids to the extent of about 14 per cent. 3. The prosecution was launched on 6-11-1963 and the accused (respondent) was summoned for 25-11-1963. Service, however, could not be effected on him for the date fixed and he ultimately appeared before the court of the Magistrate on 28-12-1963, i.e., more than one year after the date of the purchase of the sample. 4. The defence of Mahendra Singh (respondent) was that the milk which had been sold by him to the Food Inspector was not adulterated. 5. The learned Magistrate, relying on the case of Gulzari v. State, Criminal Revision No. 1523 of 1962 decided by this Court held that the delay in filing the complaint had resulted in- causing prejudice to the accused (respondent) and, therefore, acquitted the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. His main contention is that inasmuch as the sample was not retested by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the report given by the public Analyst should have been accepted. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. His main contention is that inasmuch as the sample was not retested by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, the report given by the public Analyst should have been accepted. In the absence of any report by the Director the only report which was before the court was that of the Public Analyst. However, the question which arises in all such cases is what importance should be attached to such report where a valuable right given to the accused person is lost because of the act of the complainant in not coming to the court with promptitude. Much weight cannot be attached to the report of the Public Analyst which could not, in such circumstances, be tested by the report of the Director. 7. It is true that the accused person (respondent) did not send the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, for test. However, that was unnecessary because under the law he could not have done so before the prosecution had been launched against him and he could get notice of the prosecution having been launched against him more than ten months after the sample had been taken from him. The sample could not have lasted for that period in a fit condition for retesting by the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. In the case of Chintamani v. State, Criminal Revision No. 1309 of 1963 Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. S. Mathur got sample tested by the Public Analyst almost every week right from the date the samples were taken till they became unfit for examination, and report, and it was found that where two drops of formalin per ounce of milk had been added to the sample, it remained in a fit condition to be tested only for about 300 days. In the circumstances of the case it would have been quite futile if the accused (respondent) had made an application for the retesting of the sample. In the circumstances of the case it would have been quite futile if the accused (respondent) had made an application for the retesting of the sample. It was held in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, A.I.R. 1967 SC 970 by the Supreme Court that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on the offender to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, as for example delay in prosecution, as a result of which the sample is highly decomposed and could not be analysed, the offender, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence of the facts contained therein. 8. There is no force in this appeal, and it is dismissed.