JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.93 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, in Cr. appeal No. 15/91 confirming the judgment passed by CJM Rajgarh dated 4.2.95 whereby the applicant-accused was convicted u/s 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adultration Act, 1954 (For short 'the Act') and sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.12.86 Flying Squad found the applicant storing milk for sale. PW 1 Shri V.N. Bajpai, Food Inspector, after giving notice to the applicant, purchased 750 ml. buffalo milk from him and divided the same into three parts. After completing formalities of taking and sealing the same, he sent one sample to public analyst, Bhopal and deposited two bottles of sample in the office of Local Health Authority, Registered notice was given to the applicant u/s 13(2) of the Act, which he refused to receive. The public analyst found the sample adulterated vide report Ex. P.12. On 20.11.87 the Food Inspector filed complaint in the Court of C.J.M. Rajgarh, who convicted and sentenced the applicant u/s 7(1) read with section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The applicant filed appeal and challenged conviction and sentence. The appellate Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the applicant-accused, contended that the· Courts below fell in error in convicting the applicant. The provision of section 13(2) of the Act was not complied with. The complaint was filed 11 months after taking of the sample. On account of this delay, the accused lost his va1uable right u/s 13(2) of the Act for getting the sample analysed by Central Food Laboratory. Shri Jaisingh further contended that it has not been proved that the sample was taken from the applicant. Shri G. Desai, learned Government Advocate for the State, supported the impugned judgment and contended that this Court in revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appraise the evidence. He submitted that the applicant did not express his desire and made application for getting sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the question of defeating right u/s 13(2) does not arise. I considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. He submitted that the applicant did not express his desire and made application for getting sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. Therefore, the question of defeating right u/s 13(2) does not arise. I considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. The argument that it could not be proved by the prosecution that the sample was taken from the applicant, is not acceptable as both the Courts below after appreciating evidence found that the sample was taken from the applicant. In this revision the second and main ground of attack is that the complaint was filed 11 months after the sample was taken. Admittedly, the sample was taken on 10.12.86 and complaint was filed on 30.11.87, after 11 months and 20 days and the appellant was served thereafter and he appeared in Court. Admittedly, the applicant did not apply u/s 13(2) of the Act for sending the sample to get it analysed by the Director Central Food Laboratory. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Ajit Prasad Ramkishan Singh v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 1631 , held that in absence of any application by the accused u/s 13(2) for getting the same analysed by the Director the accused could not complain that he was deprived of his right to have the same analysed by the Director. Mere delay and laches on the part of the complainant in getting the summons served was not, in the absence of evidence to show that the sample had deteriorated when the summon was served, sufficient to hold that accused was prejudiced by reason of deprivation of the right u/s 13(2). In this case the sample was taken on 1.7.1965 and the complaint was filed on 13.8.65 and the appellant appeared on 13th November, 1965. A full Bench of this Court in case of A.N. Apte, Food Inspector Indore Municipal v. Mohammad Amir Khajarana, 1974 MPLJ241 = 1977 JLJ478, considered the point of delay in prosecution. It opined that delay alone is not fatal unless it is established that ,the delay is attributable only to the prosecution has resulted in denial or frustration of the right of the accused u/s 13(2) on account of the sample having become deteriorated and unfit for analysis. It opined that delay alone is not fatal unless it is established that ,the delay is attributable only to the prosecution has resulted in denial or frustration of the right of the accused u/s 13(2) on account of the sample having become deteriorated and unfit for analysis. This Court later on in case of Shiv Dayal v. State of M.P. 1977 JLJ 506 = 1977 MPLJ 169 , considered the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ajit Prasad (supra) and full Bench decision of this Court in case of A.N. Apte (supra) and previous decisions and Encyclopaedia of Britanica (1970 Edition). Volume IX at page 564, held that a sample of milk even after adding requisite preservative, can remain fit for analysis at the most for a period of six months, if kept under refrigeration. The Court on the ground of delay acquitted the appellant. The prosecution could not cite any such case law or other material from which it can be held that on addition of preservative the milk does not get decomposed even after the period of one year. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in launching the prosecution after about one year. The accused appeared in the Court after two years and two months. It is true that the applicant did not make application u/s 13(2) of the Act but under no stretch of imagination it can be said that when the applicant appeared in the Court, after 26 months, the sample was fit for analysis. In my opinion, the delay of one year in launching prosecution is sufficient for acquitting the accused. The prosecution cannot be allowed to take advantage of illiteracy of the accused or his counsel's inadequate knowledge of the provision of law. In view of above, the applicant deserves acquittal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge u/s 7(1)/16(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The bail-bonds furnished by the applicant are discharged. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.