JUDGMENT A.S. Srivastava, J. - This appeal by the Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Agra has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31-5-1977 of Sri A.U. Khan, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, in Case No. 1830 of 1977 acquitting Murari Lal respondent of an offence under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Food Inspector R.M. Chaturvedi took a sample of cow milk which the respondent was selling in Mohalla Jeoni Mandi within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika on 21-7-1974 at about 12-30 P.M., divided the same in three parts and sealed them in three phials. After performing the necessary formalities, one sample was given to the respondent, another was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was kept by the Food Inspector in his office. The Public Analyst reported that the milk was adulterated in so far as it was deficient in non fatty solids by about 11%. On this report, the respondent was prosecuted after obtaining necessary sanction. The learned C. J. M. however, acquitted the respondent on a finding that he had no opportunity to exercise his rights under Section 13(2) of the Act. Relying upon the decision of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, 1975 (I) FAC 184, he has held that in such a case the report of the Public Analyst cannot be acted upon. Accordingly, he has acquitted the respondent. 3. It is now urged before me that since Section 13(2) of the Act is not mandatory, the respondent could have been acquitted only after establishing some prejudice caused to him. It has been urged that the decision of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram ( supra ) is no longer a good law in view of the decision of Ramji v. State of U.P., 1983 (I) FAC 184. 4. While perusing the record, I find that the decision in Ramji v. State of U.P., ( supra ) is of no help to the appellant. In the case before me, the respondent had made two applications before the trial court under Section 13(2) of the Act for sending his sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The first application (Paper No. 68/1) was made on 30-10-1976 but his sample was not sent. In the case before me, the respondent had made two applications before the trial court under Section 13(2) of the Act for sending his sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory. The first application (Paper No. 68/1) was made on 30-10-1976 but his sample was not sent. After about three months i.e. on 31-1-1977 he made the second application (Paper No. 88). It was on this application that the sample was sent from the trial court to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta on 3-2-1977 with Letter No. 77 MMIC Agra. The sending of the sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory was thus delayed not on account of any fault of the respondent. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the respondent by the Food Inspector. As soon as the prosecution was started against the respondent, he made an application for sending his sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. Though he made his first application on 30-10-1976, the sample was actually sent on 3-2-1977. The Director, Central Food Laboratory reported that the sample received in his office on 15-2-1977 was in a decomposed condition. It is in such circumstances that the trial court has held that the respondent was, deprived of his right under Section 13(2) of the Act to get his sample analysed by the Director, Central Food Laboratory soon after the report of the Public Analyst was received. The delay in sending his sample to the Director, Central Food Laboratory had, in the above circumstances, obviously resulted into a prejudice to the respondent. The trial court was, therefore, right in acquitting the respondent on this ground. The order under appeal does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.