I. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) ASHARFI, the accused-revisionist, has filed this revision to seek annulment of the judgement and the order of Shri M. P. Singh, VI Addi. Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur dated 3. 11. 81 in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 1981 dismissing the same and thereby confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against him by Shri Jai Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 13 of 1980 under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to one years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment thereof six months further R. I. ( 2 ) ON 13. 12. 78, Food Inspector Shri K. P. Mishra, (PW. 1) visited the shop of the applicant at 3. 30 p. m. where he runs the business of selling edible and mustard oils. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity to the applicant and in the presence of Surendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW. 2) took sample of Alsi oil, 450 mi. against the payment of Rs. 3. 15 through the receipt which was thumb marked by the applicant and signed by the said witness Surendra Kumar Jaiswal. Notice in form no. 6 was also handed over to the applicant. The sample was divided into three equal parts and sealed and labeled in three clean phials one of which was handed over to the applicant. The other sealed phial was sent to the Public Analyst of the Government of U. P. , Lucknow, who submitted his report dated 22. 1. 1979. He opined that the sample contained butter yellow prohibited coaltar dye. Thereafter, the Food Inspector (PW. 1) obtained sanction from Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, for prosecuting the applicant. In pursuance thereof the prosecution was launched against the appellant. ( 3 ) IN support of the prosecution case- the statements of Shri K. P. Mishra (PW. 1), Food Inspector, and Surendra Kumar Iaiswal (PW. 2) were recorded. The accused applicant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case. He examined Ram Briksh DW. 1 in defence. On the appreciation of the evidence the accused-applicant was convicted and sentenced as above by the learned Judicial Magistrate and his appeal was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision. None appeared from the applicants side. He examined Ram Briksh DW. 1 in defence. On the appreciation of the evidence the accused-applicant was convicted and sentenced as above by the learned Judicial Magistrate and his appeal was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this revision. None appeared from the applicants side. Heard the learned A. G. A. ( 4 ) THE following points arise for consideration in this revision. They are, first, that there was noncompliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act secondly, that the sanction granted by the Chief Medical Officer for the prosecution of the applicant was not valid; thirdly, that in fact no sample was obtained from the applicant as he. . . was not an oil vendor and fourthly, that the relevant documents did not bear his thumb mark. ( 5 ) THE points as to whether the applicant was an oil seller on the relevant date and as to whether the sample in question was obtained from him are questions of fact. Both the courts below returned the findings of fact that on the relevant date the applicant was selling oil at his shop and that the sample of Alsi oil was obtained against payment from him in the presence of Surendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW. 2) and in token thereof thumb impression of the applicant was obtained on the receipt and other relevant documents. Evidence of Ram Briksh, DW. 1 was also considered by the Sessions Judge on this point. Surendra Kumar Jaiswal (PW. 2) was held by both the courts below very reliable witness, The plea that he was a pocket witness of the Food Inspector on account of his being a witness in another case of the same Food Inspector was rejected. I see no reason to differ from these findings of fact. They are by no means perverse. ( 6 ) ON the question of sanction of Chief Medical Officer, the courts below believed the statement of Shri K. P. Misra, Food Inspector (P. W. 1) that the Chief Medical Officer had accorded his sanction after the perusal of the report Of the Public Analyst and other connected papers. The C. M. O. endorsed the word seen on each paper which he considered before according sanction. From this it was inferred, and rightly, that the Chief Medical Officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case before according his sanction. The C. M. O. endorsed the word seen on each paper which he considered before according sanction. From this it was inferred, and rightly, that the Chief Medical Officer had applied his mind to the facts of the case before according his sanction. I have no reason to differ from this finding also. ( 7 ) AS regards the non-compliance of Section 13 (2) of the Act, it may be noted that there is no time limit for launching prosecution under the Act. But the offence falls under Section 57 (1) read with Section 2 (ia) (k) and section 16 (1. A) (i) of the Act and is punishable with imprisonment upto 6 years though it shall not be less than I year and with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees. Accordingly, there is no limitation provided under section 468 Cr. P. C either. The sample was taken on 13. 12-1978; Public Analysts report is dated 22-1-1979; complaint was filed in the court in January 1980 (the date is not quite decipherable from the record) almost after more than a year after the sample was taken. Section 13 (2) of the Act provides to the effect that copy of the report of the Public Analyst is to be forwarded to the person from whom sample was taken informing that if he so desired he may make an application to the court within a period of ten days from the receipt of the said copy to get the other sample of the article of food analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The copy of report of Public Analyst was sent to the applicant at his correct address 0 (as appearing in the memo of present revision) detailed in the forwarding letter dated 10-1-1980 Ex. Ka. 10 through registered post vide Registration Postal Receipt dated 11- 1 -1980 (Ex. Ka. 11 ). It was not an acknowledgment due registered letter. It was not received back so Presumption would be that it was delivered to the addressee within a reasonable time. In the circumstances mere denial by the applicant is not sufficient. Also no application was made by the applicant to the court for sending the other sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly the applicant was not deprived of his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances mere denial by the applicant is not sufficient. Also no application was made by the applicant to the court for sending the other sample to the Central Food Laboratory. Accordingly the applicant was not deprived of his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 8 ) AN argument that is usually raised on behalf of the accused in such cases is that the delay in launching prosecution, and consequent delay in sending the copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the accused accompanied by an intimation about his right to _apply to the court within 10 days of the receipt of the said report, for sending the ocher sample to the Central Food Laboratory, per se results in failure of justice inasmuch as the accused is deprived of his right under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act because the sample of article of food is likely to deteriorate and become unfit for analysis and the entire procedure involved in sending the other sample to the Central Food Laboratory would be nothing but a futile formality. But it is observed in A. I. R Commentaries on Prevention of Food Adultaration Act of 1954, 1st Edition 1980 on page 215: Whether the delay in instituting the prosecution bas resulted in failure of justice depriving the accused of his right under sub-section (2) is, however, a question of fact. Mere delay, without any proof that the article had become unfit for analysis, cannot be said to prejudice the rights of the accused. It was held in the cases noted below that there is no presumption that the article must have decomposed by the delay. Since there is no presumption as above and there is no evidence or proof that sample in question had become unfit for analysis, so mere delay in instituting the prosecution would not amount to depriving the accused petitioner of his right under Section 13 (2) of the Act. ( 9 ) AS a result of the above discussion this revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed. Asharfi revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence. The realization of fine was stayed vide order dated 19-11-1981. That order stands vacated. He is granted one months time from today to deposit the fine. Revision dismissed .