JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. 1. The present revision under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 11-5-1982 passed by the Distt. Judge, Agra, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the applicant under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (for short the Act), and sentenced him for six months and awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and confirmed the order dated 1-9-81 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, I Class convicting the applicant under the aforesaid Sections and awarding the aforesaid sentences. 2. The prosecution case was that on 30-9-1977 the applicant was found selling cow milk. In view of the provisions of Section 10 (Ten) of the Act, the Inspector having reason to suspect the milk an article of food to be adulterated procured the sample according to rule and sent it for analysis. One of the sealed samples was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis vide memo Ext. Ka-5. The Public Analyst sent his report Ext. Ka-6 on 16-11-1977. The fat contents of the milk were found to be 4.3%, non fatty solids were found to be 7.8%. Whereas the standard for cow milk as given in Appendix-B as applicable to this State was milk fat 35% and milk solid non fatty 8.5%. In this way although the fatty solids were found to be more than the prescribed limit and the non-fatty solids were found to be a bit deficient. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 17-1- and the complaint was filed on 5-4-1978. A copy of the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 27-7-1978. The prosecution examined PW 1 Sri B. N. Singhal, Food Inspector, PW 2 Mahendra Singh, Sanitary Supervisor and PW 3 Bangali Mal, Food Clerk in the Nagar Mahapalika. Relying upon the prosecution case the applicant was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced as aforesaid. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order relating to his conviction and sentence. Relying upon the prosecution case the applicant was convicted under Section 7/16 of the Act and was sentenced as aforesaid. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order relating to his conviction and sentence. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act read with Rule 9-A of the Rules were violated, inasmuch as the complaint was filed on 5-4-1978 and the report was sent to the applicant after much delay, whereas Section 13 (2) of the Act provides that on receipt of the report and the result of Public Analyst under sub-section (1) to the effect that the article of food was adulterated, the local health authority, after start of prosecution against the person from whom the sample was taken, shall forward a copy of the report of the result of analysis to such person and inform him that if it is so desired, he may make an application to the Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the report to get the sample of food kept by the local health authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. In the instant case the result of the Public Analyst is alleged to have been sent by registered post on 4-5-78 which was denied by the applicant. In this way the applicant was prejudiced. Reliance was placed on Desraj v. State of U. P., 1985 ACrR 161, Puran Singh v. State of U. P., 1978 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration Journal 168, Shatrughan Behra v. Puri Municipality, 1968 CrLJ 123 . It was further urged that the report of the Public Analyst indicated that fat contents of the cow milk were found to be 4.8% Whereas in U. P. the milk fat must have been containing minimum percentage of 3.5% whereas non fatty solids were found to be 7.8% and the prescribed standard was 8.5%. In this way the non fatty solids were found deficient. 3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand 'urged that the conviction and sentence has correctly been recorded. The applicant was not prejudiced and there are no merits in the revision and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. In this way the non fatty solids were found deficient. 3. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand 'urged that the conviction and sentence has correctly been recorded. The applicant was not prejudiced and there are no merits in the revision and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the principal question for determination is as to whether the applicant was prejudiced on account of delay in sending the report of the Food Inspector to him. It is a fact that the sample was taken on 30-9-1977 whereas the same was sent to the Public Analyst and the report was received on 16-11-77. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 17-1-78 and the complaint was filed on 5-4-78 and the report of the Public Analyst was sent to the applicant on 4-5-78. In this view of the matter it appears that even the complaint was lodged with an inordinate delay. I am conscious that no limitation has been Prescribed either under the Act or the Rules for filing a complaint, but it must be with utmost sincerity. Similarly, much after filing of the complaint the result of the report of the Public Analyst is alleged to have been sent to the applicant. It appears that the Food Inspector did not perform his duties with care and caution. Nothing has come in his statement to indicate as to why this inordinate delay was caused in filing the complaint and sending a copy of the report of the Public Analyst to the applicant. After the enforcement of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Part IV-A and Article 51-A were added to the Constitution of India and now the fundamental duties have been specified. In view of Article 51-A, it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideal institutions, national flag and national anthem, to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and apart from other things, to strive towards excellence in all sphere of individual and collective activities so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. Now after addition of Article 51-A to the Constitution has contained the provision about fundamental duties consistent with Article 29 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Further the citizens, appear to be conscious towards their fundamental rights. Now in view of this Article every citizen, particularly the Government Servant, is expected to be more conscious about fundamental duties. Prior to this Article was added certain observations were made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicating that their should be fundamental duties also. It is better to quote an observation from Chandrabhawan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2642 as follows " It is fallacy to think that under our Constitution there are only rights and no duties. The provision in Part IV enables the legislature to impose various duties on the citizens. The mandate of our Constitution to build a welfare society and that object may be achieved to the extent the directive principles are implemented by the legislature. " 5. It may be that for certain positive duties, performance of which could have been dependant on the duties imposed on other officers. But in that connection everybody has to maintain sincerity and utmost honesty with a view to have the excellence in all spheres of individual activities so that the nation consistently rise to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. Even though no punishment has been provided for a citizen lacking in performing fundamental duties with utmost sincerity, but nevertheless its inclusion in Part IV-A of the Constitution is itself indicative of the fact that every individual of the country is expected to perform his duties so as to achieve national goal. IT is better to quote an observation in Chapter X " Duties " at page 333 from Jurisprudence by Dais, IVth Edition to the following effect : "Constitutional law givers gain access to a psychological mechanism, through which they can influence the life of the country.......the significance of legislating is not that the draft acquires a ' binding force ' by being promulgated as a law. The relevant point is that the provisions of the draft are made psychologically effective. And this result is attained through the use of a certain form, which has the grip over the mind of the people." 6. The relevant point is that the provisions of the draft are made psychologically effective. And this result is attained through the use of a certain form, which has the grip over the mind of the people." 6. In this view of the matter the Food Inspector or other authorities relevant in filing the complaint obtaining or granting sanction or sending the result of the Public Analyst of the sample were expected to perform their duties with utmost sincerity so as to strive towards excellence. Similarly, if everybody in the country performs his duty with ut. nost sincerity, the entire nation would rise to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. As regards the delay of about more than three months of the result of Public Analyst to be sent to the applicant, in view of Section 13 (2) of the Act the report of the Public Analyst must have been delivered without any delay to the applicant from whom the sample of the milk was taken. I am in agreement with the view taken by this Court in Desraj v. State of U. P., (Supra), that the delay caused prejudice to the applicant in making application to the Court in sending the sample of Public Analyst by the Central Food Laboratory. 7. In Shatrughan Behra v. Puri Municipality, (Supra) it was held that the milk becomes decomposed after the period of 5 1/2 months. May be that when added all preservatives the sample could have been kept in a condition so as to send for analysis to the Director, Central Food Laboratory. But in that case it was held that the sample kept in the office of the Chief Medical. Officer must have become decomposed on account of such inordinate delay, I am of the view that this has certainly prejudiced the applicant. 8. The matter can be viewed from another angle. It was a fact that the Public Analyst found the standard of cow milk as provided under Clause (1) 11.01.11 of Appendix-B of the Rules framed under the Act laying down the standard of cow milk in U. P. that the milk fat was higher than was the prescribed standard, whereas the milk sealed as non fatty was less in percentage than the standard, prescribed. In that connection it is better to quote an observation in a Division Bench Case of this Court in Puran Singh v. State of U. P., (Supra), that as admitted by the Food Inspector in that case that it was not possible to take out non fatty solids from the milk, that reduced the fat contents. In that case the report of the Public Analyst was held to be doubtful. In matters of milk of cow there can be a number of factors. The cow milk in a country like India where it is very difficult to provide nutritive value and healthy fodder to the cows or buffaloes to expect a particular standard of fatty and non- fatty solids based on mathematical exactitude, it is better to quote an observation at page 170 by Hon'ble S. Malik, J. in division Bench Case of Puran Singh v. State (Supra), as follows : " It is not necessary to refer to various standard books to show that quality of milk or in other words, percentage of milk fat and non fatty milk solids depends not only on proper feeding, but also the health of the animal from whose under the milk was extracted. In our country, though efforts are being made to improve the breed of milch cattle by crossing the Indian breeds with foreign breeds and foreign bulls have been imported in large numbers for the purpose, but merely improving the breed will not improve the quality of milk or quantity of milk producing capacity of the cattle. Of course, these observations do not apply to buffaloes because India has the best breed of buffaloes in the world as regards capacity to produce milk. The main problem in our country is non availability of nourishing and sufficient quantity of food for the cattle, both green and otherwise. Quality of milk depends not only on quality and quantity of food given to an animal but also on its health. " In view of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that the result of the Public Analyst was unreliable as in view of Section 13 (5) of the Act, the report sent by the Public Analyst is just an evidence of the facts stated therein and it wold be open to the Court deciding the case either to accept such evidence or not. In the instant case I find the report of the Public Analyst, not free from reasonable doubt and the benefit has to go to the accused, the present applicant. 9. In the result, the conviction of the applicant under Section 7/16 of the Act cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the present revision succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the courts below recorded conviction and sentence are set aside. The applicant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.