Manisana, J.- State has filed this appeal against an order of acquittal dated 30.4.1979 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar Silchar. The charge against the respondent is that on or about 21.9.77 at Silchar Town, the respondent sold adulterated milk and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The accused pleaded not guilty. After the trial, the lear­ned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent of the charge on the grounds that (1) there has been a delay of one and half months in making the anlaysis of the milk, and (2) rule 21 of the Pre­vention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, for short "Rules” has been violated. 2. Ext 1 is the notice to the respondent intimating that the purpose of taking sample was for analysis. In the notice it is mentioned; "40% Formalin 2 drops per each 25 ML. Added as preservative''. Ext 3 is the memorandum dated 21.9.1977 res­pecting the sending of the sample for analysis by the PW 1 to Public Analyst, Government of Assam. In that memorandum also, the preservative used is mentioned as "40% Formalin 2 drops per each 25 ML". PW 1, Food Inspector who signed the Exts 1 and 3, stated in the examination in-chief. "Then every 25 ML of milk was mixed with two drops of Formalin (40%)". In view of the discussion above, the preservative used in the present case was "40% Formalin''. But, under rule 20 of the "Rules'' the preservative to be used in the case of sample of any milk is "frontline” which is a liquid containing about 40% of formaldehyde in aqueous solution in the proportion mentioned in the rule 20. 3. The Public Analyst received the sample on 23.9.1977. Ext 4 shows that the Public Analyst analysed the milk-sample on 4.11.1977 after about 11 months from the date of the receipt of the sample. The Public Analyst must examine the sample with due promptitude. However, in some cases delay in the analysis is bound to occur. Therefore, precaution of adding preservative to the sample has to be taken by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst has also to take all the necessary precaution for keeping the sample so that the composition of the milk may be main­tained. There is no evidence on record that the sample was kept under refrigeration or ice. Therefore, precaution of adding preservative to the sample has to be taken by the Food Inspector. The Public Analyst has also to take all the necessary precaution for keeping the sample so that the composition of the milk may be main­tained. There is no evidence on record that the sample was kept under refrigeration or ice. There is also no certificate of the Pub­lic Analyst that the constituents of milk had not changed. Com­position of milk undergoes rapid change. In the present case, even the required "nature and quantity'' of the preservative was also not added. In Dattappa, AIR 1961 Nagur 191, it was held : "for, it is clear from the opinion of Harvey and Hill, that the composition of milk undergoes a rapid change unless the milk is either pasteurized or unless it is sent under refrigeration. Therefore, it had to be established that the samples in question were sent under refrigeration. They have led no evidence to that effect.” It was further held : "Bearing in mind that the milk was analysed by the Analyst almost a week after the samples were taken, the absence of the proof of the manner in which the samples were sent and the condition in which the milk was when the samples were received by him detracts in my judgment, from the value of his clarificates.” (emphasis added) The decision in Dattappa (supra) was followed in Municipal Committee, 1962 (1) Cri. L. J. 150 and Jagneswar Sengupta AIR 1964 Tripura 48. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1965 (2) Cri L. J. 571 (para 14, it was observed : “........the Analyst must also examine the samples with due promptitude; delays and lapses in this respect are likely to adversely affect the prosecution case and indeed we have recently come across quite a few cases under this Act which have failed on account of unexplained and unjustified delay in the examination of the samples by the Analysts.'' (emphasis added) 4 In view of the discussions above, there was delay in anal­ysing the sample. As stated above, there is no record to show the precaution taken in sending and keeping the milk sample. Over and above the preservative used was "40% Formalin" agai­nst the provisions in the rule 20, which shows that the quality and the quantity of the preservative required under rule 20 was not added in the milk-sample. 5. As stated above, there is no record to show the precaution taken in sending and keeping the milk sample. Over and above the preservative used was "40% Formalin" agai­nst the provisions in the rule 20, which shows that the quality and the quantity of the preservative required under rule 20 was not added in the milk-sample. 5. In view of the discussion above it will be difficult; in the instant case, to rely on the report of Analyst for basing conviction. On this ground alone the appeal must fail. Since we are going to dismiss the appeal on this ground, we reserve our views on the effect of violation of the rule 21 of the "Rules” for some other occasion. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.