JUDGMENT 1. . - This appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Council, Jaipur against the judgement of the learned Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur dated January 22, 1976. I have heard arguments and perused the record. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. The facts of this case are that the Food Inspector B. P. Mathur checked the respondent Jagdish while selling milk on 24.6.68 at 7.45 p.m. near Flag Circle opposite the University in Jaipur. He purchased the sample of the milk divided the same into three parts. Added requisite quantity of formalin and sealed the same in separate three bottles. One bottle was sent to the Public Analyst who reported that the fat contents in the sample were 3.6% the solids, non fat were 4.90%. The sample was considered to have been adulterated by reason of containing added water to the extent of 45%. Upon a complaint having been lodged, the accused was tried for the offence under Section 16(1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, but the learned Magistrate by his impugned judgement acquitted the respondent Jagdish of the said offence. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution was able to establish ' that the Food Inspector purchased the sample of milk as alleged. It was also found adulterated. But he acquitted the accused on the ground that from the day the sample was purchased to the date of appearance of the accused, there has been a delay of nearly six months and this delay generated suspicion in the mind of the learned Magistrate. He also observed that the Food Inspector was corroborated only by his peon Bansilal P.W. 2 the other witness Sita Ram was also disbelieved because he has been assisting the Food Inspector as another in several other cases and he was under the influence of the Food Inspector, being a retail licensee. The learned Magistrate thought that in a case of similar type the High Court had acquitted some accused because the motbir had turned hostile and the Food Inspector and the peon were not considered reliable. 4. Both the grounds given by the learned Magistrate are frivolous. The learned Magistrate thought that in a case of similar type the High Court had acquitted some accused because the motbir had turned hostile and the Food Inspector and the peon were not considered reliable. 4. Both the grounds given by the learned Magistrate are frivolous. The delay discovered by the learned Magistrate is not at all fatal to the prosecution and it does not appear clear how it could create any doubt in the mind of the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate perhaps thought that on account of this delay of six months, the accused was deprived of his right to have the sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory under sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the aforesaid Act, but it has now been well settled by the highest authority that the right under sub-section (2) of the said Act, does not arise until the accused makes an application for second analysis and there is evidence on record to show that the sample had become unfit for analysis. Since the accused did not give any such application, he has not been deprived of any such right. The learned Magistrate appeared to be unaware of this position of law and that is why he misdirected himself in giving a finding in favour of the accused. 5. As regards the testimony of the Food Inspector and the employees of the Municipal Council, there is no legal bar in accepting their evidence unless it could be proved that there was any animosity between the employee of the Municipal Council and the accused. Here again, the learned Magistrate's approach was clearly contrary to law. 6. The order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate, therefore appears to be against the record and also against law. It is clearly proved by the evidence of the Food Inspector and the other witnesses that the sample was purchased as alleged and was found adulterated as reported by the Public Analyst. The Judgement of the learned Magistrate deserves to be reversed. 7. Consequently, I accept the appeal of the Municipal Council, set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convict the respondent Jagdish of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 7. Consequently, I accept the appeal of the Municipal Council, set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and convict the respondent Jagdish of an offence under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to additional simple imprisonment for three months. *******