JUDGMENT M. Chandra, J. - This is an appeal against the acquittal of Narain Singh. He was charged under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for selling adulterated milk. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was this : On 22-6-1964 at about 7 a.m. at Mira Husaini crossing in Agra Sri Narain Singh exposed cow milk and goat milk mixed in the ratio of 3 : 1 for sale. A sample was purchased according to rules. On analysis, it was found by the Public Analyst to be deficient in fatty solid content by about 37 per cent. Narain Singh was accordingly prosecuted. 3. In defence Sri N Train Singh denied that he sold the milk and pleaded that the milk of which sample was taken was pure and that he was carrying it for extraction of cream from it. 4. Prosecution examined Sri V.N. Singh, Food Inspector as P. W. 1 and Sri Jagdish Chandra (P.W. 2) to corroborate (P.W. 1). No witness was examined in defence. 5. The learned Magistrate found it proved that Sri Narain Singh was selling milk and that the sample as alleged by the prosecution was taken, but he acquitted Sri Narain Singh on the ground that the complaint was lodged on 1/2 June, 1965 after a very long period of only 21 days less than a year and Sri Narain Singh was consequently deprived of the opportunity given to the accused under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, to get the opinion of the Director Central Food Laboratory. 6. In appeal, the learned counsel for the Naagar Mahapalika, appellant, contends the Sri Narain Singh should not have been acquitted because the could have even then sent the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory and it was for the Director to say whether he was in a position to give a report or not. This contention is without force. It is true that it is in evidence that two drops of formaline were added as preservative to the milk. But, even then, the two drops would not preserve the milk for such a long period. It has been repeatedly found by this Court that even after addition of formaline ordinarily the milk may deteriorate after 295 days and may curdle after 308 days. In this case the delay was not a short one. But, even then, the two drops would not preserve the milk for such a long period. It has been repeatedly found by this Court that even after addition of formaline ordinarily the milk may deteriorate after 295 days and may curdle after 308 days. In this case the delay was not a short one. It was an inordinate delay of 343 days before the complaint was filed. There is not the slightest explanation for this delay. Local authorities like Nagar Mahapalika are expected to act with a certain sense of responsibility and not to delay the complaints inordinately. By their own action of delaying the complaint, the Nagar Mahapalika cannot be allowed to prejudice the accused and deprive him of the opportunity of sending the milk to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The appellant has only itself to thank for this inordinate delay and consequent acquittal. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Chisa Ram, A.I.R. 1967 SC 970 "the report of the Public Analyst having been sent on 23rd October 1961 to the prosecution could have been launched well in time to enable the respondent to exercise his right under section 13(2) of the Act without being handicapped by the deterioration of his sample. The prosecution, on the other hand, committed inordinate delay in launching the prosecution when they filed the complaint on 23rd May 1962 and no explanation is forthcoming why the complaint in court was filed about seven months after the report of the Public Analyst had been issued by him. This is therefore clearly a case where the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of exercising his right to have his sample examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory by the conduct of the prosecution. In such a case, we think that the respondent is entitled to claim that his conviction is vitiated by this circumstance of denial of this valuable right guaranteed by this act, as a result of the conduct of the prosecution." 7. There can be stronger observations against such inordinate delays by the prosecution. It is not necessary that the prosecution should only be valid. What is necessary is that the accused should not be prejudiced by delay on the part of the complainant for which there is no possible explanation. There can be stronger observations against such inordinate delays by the prosecution. It is not necessary that the prosecution should only be valid. What is necessary is that the accused should not be prejudiced by delay on the part of the complainant for which there is no possible explanation. I agree with the court below that Sri Narain Singh was entitled to an acquittal. 8. The appeal is without force and is dismissed.