Judgment.- The Food Inspector of the Trichur Municipality has filed this appeal against the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent of the charge of having sold adulterated butter to the Food Inspector. The butter when analysed by the Public Analyst, Kerala was found adulterated as the milk fact content was only 77.9 per cent as against the prescribed standard of 80 per cent, and contained 21 per cent, of moisture, i.e., 5 per cent, in excess of the prescribed 16 per cent. The sample was taken on 2nd September, 1964 and the report of the Public Analyst is dated 22nd October, 1964. However the complaint was filed in Court only on 13th June, 1965 after the lapse of nearly eight months. On 23rd August, 1965 the accused applied to the Court for sending the sample retained by the Food Inspector to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta. However the accused was denied the benefit of that analysis as the Director reported that the sample was highly decomposed and could not be analysed. The learned Judge held that the long delay in filing the complaint has prejudiced the accused by depriving him of the right of testing the correctness of the Public Analyst’s report by getting the butter analysed by the Central Food Laboratory and taking the view that it is not fair to convict an accused whose rights were prejudicially affected by the laches of the prosecution, acquitted him. The learned Counsel for the complainant takes up the stand that so long as there is nothing in the evidence to challenge the correctness of the analyst’s report the order of acquittal based solely on the circumstances that the opportunity to have the sample tested by the Central Food Laboratory was lost by the delay in filing the complaint, cannot be sustained. It was further urged that if the accused was keen on getting the butter analysed by the Central Food Laboratory he could have produced the sample in his possession. According to the learned Counsel if the order of acquittal is confirmed by this Court it would be giving the subordinate Courts a general sanction to acquit the accused in all cases of food adulteration where there is a delay in filing the complaint. I am not impressed with the line of reasoning. According to the learned Counsel if the order of acquittal is confirmed by this Court it would be giving the subordinate Courts a general sanction to acquit the accused in all cases of food adulteration where there is a delay in filing the complaint. I am not impressed with the line of reasoning. This is a case in which there is an unexplained and avoidable delay of about eight months after the receipt of the Analyst’s report in filing the complaint. The Act does not provide for the addition of any preservative to butter as in the case of some other articles of food and that enhances the possibility of deterioration. In such cases the Food Inspectors should take particular care to promptly bring the complaint before Court. Section 13(2) confers a valuable right on an accused person to have the sample sent to the Director of Central Food Laboratory after the institution of the prosecution and provides that that report shall supersede the report given by the Public Analyst. That is practically the only effective method of challenging the correctness of the Public Analyst’s report and it is the duty of the prosecution to see that the chance is not denied to the accused by any laches on their part. In view of the heavy penalties imposed for offences under the Act it is also the duty of the Courts to safeguard the interests of the accused. No adverse inference could also be drawn against the accused for not producing the sample in his possession to be analysed as there is no reason to think that the sample in his possession would not be in the same condition as the sample with the complainant. The order of acquittal is therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.