Judgment : This appeal is directed by the State against the validity of the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No. 8 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, acquitting the accused of the offences under section 7 (1) read with sections 16 (1) (a) (i), 2(1-a) (a) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector attached to the Kumbakonam Municipality on 30th September, 1978 at about 11 a.m., purchased 660 ml. of milk from the accused, intended for sale and for human consumption after serving the notice Exhibit P-1 for a price of Re. 1 as evidenced by Exhibit P-2. He divided the milk into three equal parts, filled them in separate dry bottles, added the requisite quantity of Formalin and after observing the formalities, sent a part of the sample to the Public Analyst, who, on analysis of the articles of food, has opined under Exhibit P-5, report, that the sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of at least 34%. On receipt of Exhibit P-5, the prosecution was launched before the Court on 30th December, 1978. Thereafter, notice under Exhibit P-7 as required under section 13 (2) was served on the accused on 19th January, 1979. 3. The accused denied the offences. 4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that there is a violation of section 10 (7) of the Act and that the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be accepted 5. As rightly contended, these two grounds, on the basis of which the order of acquittal was passed, are not tenable. 6. Today, this appeal is listed before me for orders, as the notice sent to the accused has not been returned so far, either served or un-served. It is to be noted that the notice was ordered by this Court on 24th July, 1980. 7. Now, let me examine the facts of the case and see whether this appeal should be kept on the file of this Court for any longer period, or whether the order of the Court below is tainted with any illegality which could be cured at any point of time. 8. Admittedly, the prosecution was launched only on 30th December, 1978. Now, let me examine the facts of the case and see whether this appeal should be kept on the file of this Court for any longer period, or whether the order of the Court below is tainted with any illegality which could be cured at any point of time. 8. Admittedly, the prosecution was launched only on 30th December, 1978. It is also borne out clearly by the records that the notice as required under section 13 (2) of the Act read with rule 9-A of the Rules made there under was served on the accused only on 19th January, 1979. Thus, there was a delay of nearly twenty days is serving the notice on the accused. This unexplained and inordinate delay, if examined in the light of the observations made in Abdul Majid v. State by the Food Inspector and the judgment in Sabastian v. State2, has to be held to have vitiated the proceedings of the trial and hence no useful purpose would be served by keeping this case on file for any longer period. 9. There is one more point in favour of the accused, which would also compel this Court to sustain the order of acquittal even if the appeal is taken at a later stage. There is no evidence from P.W. 1, that the milk was stirred before the sample was taken. This shows that the sample of milk sent to the Analyst, cannot be said to have truly represented the milk to be tested. This Court has acquitted the accused in a number of cases on this ground also. See the judgment in Crl. R.C. No. 1129 of 1978, dated 29th October, 1981 (M. Rangaswami) and the recent judgment in State v. P. Chellappah. 10. For all these reasons, I feel that this appeal need not be kept on the file of this Court, as the appeal would have to be allowed on these two grounds even though the reasons given by the Magistrate for the acquittal are not tenable. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.