JUDGMENT V. Kumar, J. - This is a revision against the conviction of the revisionist under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. According to the prosecution case on 19.4.79 in Palia Town Food Inspector B.N. Mgnihotri P.W. 1 in presence of Shri Ram W. 2, small-pox vaccinator, Palia, took sample of the milk from the revisionist on suspicion that it was adulterated milk. The formalities in taking the sample were compplied with and the sample was sent the public analyst on 24.5.79 for his report. The office of the Chief Medical Officer sent a copy of the report of the public analyst under the covering letter dated 12.1.1980 to the revisionist. The public analyst has given the report against the revisionist nothing that on the basis of the contents of the milk, it was found adulterated in asmuch as there was a shortage of fat to the extent of 33% and non-fat to the extent of 17%. For prosecution of the revisionist, a complaint dated 31.12.79 was sent to Court. 3. The contention of the revisionist is that on account of undue delay in filing the complaint against him for the alleged adulteration and also on account of inordinate delay in sending the report of the public analyst to him he was deprived of his valuable right to move for obtaining the report of the Director of Central Food Laboratory under section 13 (2) of the Act with regard to the sample of the milk taken. His contention is that as the report of the public analyst was sent to him as late as on 12.1.1980- that is to say about 8 months after taking of the sample it was obviously quite useless for him to move for obtaining the report of the Director of the Central Food Laboratory under Section 13 of the Act, because by that time the sample must have decomposed and deteriorated and would not have remained fit for analysis. In this connection it is material to note that even the complaint against the revisionist on the basis of the report of the public analyst seems to have been received in the Court on 10.1.80. The complaint is dated 31.12.79. In this connection it is material to note that even the complaint against the revisionist on the basis of the report of the public analyst seems to have been received in the Court on 10.1.80. The complaint is dated 31.12.79. The revisionist has relied on the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, 1979 Al PFAJ 301 and Desh Raj v. State of U.P., 1985 (22) ACC 109. In support of his contention. On account of inordinate delay the revisionist was virtually deprived of his valuable right under Section 13 of the Act to get the sample analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory. It was of no use to move for obtaining the report of the Director of Central Food Lab. as the sample kept in the office of Chief Medical Officer, must have decomposed and deteriorated making it unfit for analysis by the Director. Consequently, the conviction and sentences of the revisionist cannot be upheld in the revision. The revision has to be allowed. 4. The revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentences passed against the revisionist are set aside. The revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender. Bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are dis- charged. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the revisionist.