JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises on leave granted by this Court on August 31, 1988, against the judgment, dated June 6, 1987, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. A sample of refined palm oil was taken from the shop of M/s. Suraj Mal Mangi Lal, situate in Nehru Nagar, Barmer, by Prem Chand Harsh, Food Inspector, Barmer, on August 10, 1984. The sample was sent for chemical examination to the Public Analyst, Jaipur. It was found to be adulterated as it did not conform to the prescribed standard. The accused was challaned in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, who, after trial, convicted the accused for offence under Section 7/16 of the Act to six month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to three months' further rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge, by the judgment, dated June 6, 1987, acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. 3. The principal ground, on which the Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused, was that the complaint in the Court was filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor and not by the Food Inspector. This, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vitiated the trial as it was contrary to the various decisions of this Court. 4. True, the ground, on which the accused has been acquitted, does not conform to the latest view taken by this Court. But having regard to the delay of more than five years. I am of the view that to interfere with the acquittal now would not advance the cause of justice as the accused has already suffered by remaining under trial for more than 5 years. The Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, in Food Inspector v. Madan Lal declined to set aside the order of acquittal on the ground that there was a delay of six years. 5. In this view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.State appeal dismissed. *******