Short Note : 1. Petitioner Khoji was convicted and sentenced to three months R. 1 and a tine of Rs. 200, under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Held : It is argued in the first place that the petitioner is not a milk vender nor was the milk being carried for sale; on the contrary the petitioner was on his way to deliver it to Hamid Hussain (P.W.1) who is his relative and who was in need of it in connection with a ceremony at his place on that day. It is however, manifestly clear from the evidence of R.C. Verma (P.W.1) and Dhannosingh (P.W.3) that the petitioner was then engaged in the business of selling milk. Not only that, every bit of the defence taken by the petitioner in this behalf has rightly been found as a mere skin-saving device by the Courts below. That apart, the term 'sale' and defined for the purposes of the said Act includes a sale for analysis. Food Inspector Calicut v. Cherukattia Gapolan and another, AIR 1971 SC 1725 , Mohd. Yamin v. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1973 SC 484 , relied on. 2. It is urged that because of the inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, the petitioner was deprived of his valuable right to get the sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. The milk was purchased on 4-4-73 and analysed on 7-4-73. As many as 18 drops of formalin were added to it. The complaint itself was tiled on 5-7-73 i.e. to say just after three months and the petitioner made his first appearance before the Court on 15-10-73. Even so, he took no steps under section 13(2) of the Act for getting the mill sample analysed by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. He cannot, therefore, complain that he was deprived of his right to have the sample analysed by the Director. Babulal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1277 , Ajeetprasad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1631 , relied on. Revision dismissed.