Short Note : 1. The applicant was convicted under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Held : The grievance made before the Court was that there was delay in analysis of the sample and there was also delay in filing the challan and because of this delay, the accused-applicant was deprived of that valuable right given to him under section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. This Court is not willing to accept this proposition of the petitioner. It will be clear that the preservative was added when the sample was taken and the milk was analysed within a short period and the challan was also filed within two months. Added to this, no application has been filed under section 13 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the applicant that he wanted to get examined the sample which was given to him. If no such application is given before the trial Court, it cannot be said that the accused is prejudiced by filling the challan late. This Court is of the view that no prejudice is caused to the applicant. Ram Bharose v. State of M.P. 1976 WN 58, Phagu Pooranlal Yadav v. State of M.P. MPLJ SN 99 relied on. Revision dismissed.