P. C. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE Municipal Council, Sehore has preferred this appeal against acquittal of the respondent for the offence under section 7 (1) read with section 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. ( 2 ) ON 30-7-1973 at about 8-30 a. m. Food Inspector Prem Narayan (P. W. 1) stopped the respondent who was carrying cows milk for sale in a can. He purchased 660 ml. of milk after paying its price and intimating the purpose. The sample was divided in parts and duly scaled in three clean dry bottles after adding formaline 18 drops in each bottle. After sealing the bottles, one bottle was given to the respondent, one was sent to the Public Analyst and the third bottle was retained for producing in the Court. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst, a complaint was filed on 10-9-1973. The respondent appeared on 27-12-1974 as the summons to him could not be served earlier. The prosecution examined Food Inspector, Prem Narayan (P. W. 1), and closed the case. The respondent pleaded that no milk was taken from him but he was asked to act as a Panch and that is why he signed on the document. The learned trial Magistrate while accepting the prosecution case, held that the sample of milk was taken from the respondent which has been found to be adulterated but acquitted the respondent on the grounds: (i) that there is non-compliance with Rule 18 of the Food Adulteration Rules, and (ii) the third bottle was not produced in Court. ( 3 ) SO far as the first question is concerned, the Food Inspector did not say in so many words that he had send the specimen seals separately and he has also not been questioned on this aspect. But the memorandum (Ex. P-4) in Form VII clearly mention that a copy of this memo and a specimen impression of the seal is being sent separately. Ex. P-4a is a copy of specimen impression of the seal sent separately. The report (Ex. P-5) of the Public Analyst shows that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately and on comparison seals on the sample bottles tallied with the specimen seal. Ex. P-4a is a copy of specimen impression of the seal sent separately. The report (Ex. P-5) of the Public Analyst shows that the specimen impression of the seal was sent separately and on comparison seals on the sample bottles tallied with the specimen seal. Under section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act there is a presumption that all official and judicial acts are regularly performed. So it has to be held that the specimen seal was sent separately while sending the sample bottle for analysis and there is compliance of Rule 18. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, regarding he second question, there is some dispute. In the note appended to the complaint it is mentioned that the third sample bottle is being produced but the trial Magistrate while recording evidence of Prem Narayan made a mention that no such bottle has been deposited in the Nazarat. So we have to accept the official record and not the recital in the complaint. The complainant ought to have got it mentioned in the order-sheet about the production of the third bottle. ( 5 ) BESIDES there is a unusual delay in launching the prosecution. The respondent was served with the summons of the case 14 months after taking of the sample and by that time the sample bottle which was given to the respondent might have deteriorated and would not have been fit for analysis and the respondent was deprived of his right under section 13 (2) of the Act for getting it analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The decision of this Court in Sheo Dayal v. Slate of M. P. 1, fully apply to the facts of the present case. On the ground of delay alone the respondent is entitled to be acquitted. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .