JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This revision application has been filed by Jagdish Prasad against his conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The trial court had sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default of its judgment to six months' rigorous imprisonment. In appeal the lower appellate had set aside the sentence of imprisonment and maintained only the sentence of fine. 2. According to the prosecution the revisionist was selling milk at Hari Om Gali, Raja Ki Mandi, Agra, on 29-5-73 at about 8.30 P.M. when the Food Inspector in the presence of certain witnesses took sample of milk for analysis. It was divided into three parts, one of which was given to the revisionist. It was alleged to be cow milk and the Food Inspector found deficiency both in fatty contents and non-fatty solids. The revisionist did not get his sample examined by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. The main argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that since the complaint was filed three months after taking of the sample there was delay in launching the prosecution and the revisionist was deprived of a valuable right given by Jaw under Section 13(2) of the U.P. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned lower appellate court has discussed this aspect of the matter at length and has rightly held that mere delay in launching of prosecution does not vitiate the trial. In Ajit Prasad Ram Kishan v. The State of Maharashtra, 1972 F.A.C. 545. it has been held that mere delay and laches on the part of the complainant in getting the summons served is not, in the absence of evidence to show that the sample had deteriorated when the summons was served, sufficient to hold that the accused was prejudiced by reason of deprivation of the right under Section 13(2). It was further held that in the absence of any application by the accused under Section 13(2), for getting the sample analysed by the Director, the accused could not complain that he was deprived of a useful right. In the instant case also the revisionist neither moved any application nor there is any evidence to show that the sample of milk given to him had deteriorated by the time the complaint was filed. In the instant case also the revisionist neither moved any application nor there is any evidence to show that the sample of milk given to him had deteriorated by the time the complaint was filed. I am, therefore, of judgment that he was rightly convicted of the said charge. 3. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. The revisionist is directed to deposit the fine within one month from the date of the receipt of the record failing which he will be taken into custody to serve out the alternative punishment. The stay order is vacated.